|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I want to address the other aspect of MrBear's post as well.
You can't say "The campaign will be dead in two years" and "Replay will kill the campaign." It's one of the other. Ad's if it's dying anyway, the only people you hurt by denying replay are the few people who still want to play.
They're contradictory statements, and both beliefs lead to opposing conclusions. Two years from now, the majority of us will be happily playing v2 and the only thing stopping the die hard fans from continuing to play v1 like they want to is people who no longer play the campaign telling them they're having the wrong kind of fun.
The only thing stopping diehard fans from continuing to play v1 is the idea that they must get credit to play adventures.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And this impacts you enough to argue against post retirement replays because...?
I appreciate it's a very personal situation. Please don't think I'm blindly attached to an opposing position. But EVERY loosening of replay restrictions is just used as more evidence of 'nothing bad has happened, we can go further!' and I have no doubt that people will take 1e as an example to argue for 2e to open up more replay. I'm going to be playing 1e, don't worry. I'm not just some outsider saying you can't replay because I got mine.
|
I want to address the other aspect of MrBear's post as well.
You can't say "The campaign will be dead in two years" and "Replay will kill the campaign." It's one of the other. Ad's if it's dying anyway, the only people you hurt by denying replay are the few people who still want to play.
They're contradictory statements, and both beliefs lead to opposing conclusions. Two years from now, the majority of us will be happily playing v2 and the only thing stopping the die hard fans from continuing to play v1 like they want to is people who no longer play the campaign telling them they're having the wrong kind of fun.
Those are not contradictory statements, and the bulk of my post explains why.
But to reiterate if you don't want to read that wall of text again:
1) The campaign will organically, essentially, stop becoming relevant in, my estimation, 2 years, because most of the regular players will have played it out.
2) If its still being artificially kept alive due to replay, and organizers are still offering it at conventions, then its highly likely a new player will try it out. If they do, and they get turned off (which is highly likely) because its a bunch of people who have played it several times, then that will make it less likely they will also try out PFS2.
In other words, its ok to let PFS1 organically die off in 2 years or 4 years or however long it takes.
It is not ok for people so dramatically attached to PFS1 that they keep it alive to a point where it makes it more difficult for PFS2 to become successful because it scares off new players that could also try out PFS2.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
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.
One chronicle sheet is enough, just look at a chronicle sheet from a multi-table special like 9-00. Just give gold per subtier and XP/PP based on group performance/encounters completed.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Why is replay for no credit not enough to make tables happen? If it is the restriction that it is only allowed if the table will not fire otherwise, I support relaxing that restriction so that anyone can replay for no credit as long as there is room.
Currently, it can be tricky to replay with no credit since it is only allowed to make the table legal, and if another player turns up the player who drove to the game to make the table happen suddenly can'T play.
I am in favor of removing that restriction entirely.
Of course, it is still replay, and GMs should still be encouraged not to allow replay for players who would negatively affect the experience of first-time players.
--
I prefer the dummy chronicle tactic, because especially at higher levels there are often costs associated with playing (I have used too many scrolls of [i]heal[/] or wands of CLW).
EDIT: If the question comes up, I think it is perfectly viable for GMs to offer public games with the restriction that they do not accept/want people replaying.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) If its still being artificially kept alive due to replay, and organizers are still offering it at conventions, then its highly likely a new player will try it out. If they do, and they get turned off (which is highly likely) because its a bunch of people who have played it several times, then that will make it less likely they will also try out PFS2.
I disagree with this statement. I think someone who hasn't played Pathfinder (any) will be way more likely to try PF2 than PF1 (assuming no outside influence such as friends who play it). Most people will play the newest version of any game first.
On top of that, you will always have players "meta gaming" the module regardless of what edition you are talking about.
Finally, it organizers are still offering it, and it is getting enough people playing it....then that means there is a demand for it. Which ultimately is a good thing for Paizo, right? That means, more people will buy older materials because they liked the game and want to play it.
|
|
2) If its still being artificially kept alive due to replay, and organizers are still offering it at conventions, then its highly likely a new player will try it out. If they do, and they get turned off (which is highly likely) because its a bunch of people who have played it several times, then that will make it less likely they will also try out PFS2.I disagree with this statement. I think someone who hasn't played Pathfinder (any) will be way more likely to try PF2 than PF1 (assuming no outside influence such as friends who play it). Most people will play the newest version of any game first.
On top of that, you will always have players "meta gaming" the module regardless of what edition you are talking about.
Finally, it organizers are still offering it, and it is getting enough people playing it....then that means there is a demand for it. Which ultimately is a good thing for Paizo, right? That means, more people will buy older materials because they liked the game and want to play it.
As someone who has organized several conventions and been involved in the after action reports of several large ones (like Gen Con), my anecdotal evidence tells me that new players don't often read the information about the event very carefully, and just sign up to play because its available in a time slot they have available.
So if something is offered at a convention, they will try it out, without realizing sometimes there even is a difference between PFS1 and PFS2.
Its a pretty well known fact amongst organizers, that people in general don't read the information given.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
2) If its still being artificially kept alive due to replay, and organizers are still offering it at conventions, then its highly likely a new player will try it out. If they do, and they get turned off (which is highly likely) because its a bunch of people who have played it several times, then that will make it less likely they will also try out PFS2.I disagree with this statement. I think someone who hasn't played Pathfinder (any) will be way more likely to try PF2 than PF1 (assuming no outside influence such as friends who play it). Most people will play the newest version of any game first.
On top of that, you will always have players "meta gaming" the module regardless of what edition you are talking about.
Finally, it organizers are still offering it, and it is getting enough people playing it....then that means there is a demand for it. Which ultimately is a good thing for Paizo, right? That means, more people will buy older materials because they liked the game and want to play it.
As someone who has organized several conventions and been involved in the after action reports of several large ones (like Gen Con), my anecdotal evidence tells me that new players don't often read the information about the event very carefully, and just sign up to play because its available in a time slot they have available.
So if something is offered at a convention, they will try it out, without realizing sometimes there even is a difference between PFS1 and PFS2.
Its a pretty well known fact amongst organizers, that people in general don't read the information given.
Fair enough...I'll concede the first point to your experience...but that doesn't invalidate the other points I made.
Any table can have jerks and meta-gamers. Those people make the experience bad for newbies and veterans alike.And if the organizer is offering the game and people are playing it, doesn't that mean there is still demand for it? That people still WANT to play it? By allowing no replay, you are forcing it's death (or pushing it into the realm of "home game only").
|
|
2) If its still being artificially kept alive due to replay, and organizers are still offering it at conventions, then its highly likely a new player will try it out. If they do, and they get turned off (which is highly likely) because its a bunch of people who have played it several times, then that will make it less likely they will also try out PFS2.I disagree with this statement. I think someone who hasn't played Pathfinder (any) will be way more likely to try PF2 than PF1 (assuming no outside influence such as friends who play it). Most people will play the newest version of any game first.
On top of that, you will always have players "meta gaming" the module regardless of what edition you are talking about.
Finally, it organizers are still offering it, and it is getting enough people playing it....then that means there is a demand for it. Which ultimately is a good thing for Paizo, right? That means, more people will buy older materials because they liked the game and want to play it.
As someone who has organized several conventions and been involved in the after action reports of several large ones (like Gen Con), my anecdotal evidence tells me that new players don't often read the information about the event very carefully, and just sign up to play because its available in a time slot they have available.
So if something is offered at a convention, they will try it out, without realizing sometimes there even is a difference between PFS1 and PFS2.
Its a pretty well known fact amongst organizers, that people in general don't read the information given.
Fair enough...I'll concede the first point to your experience...but that doesn't invalidate the other points I made.
Any table can have jerks and meta-gamers. Those people make the experience bad for newbies and veterans alike.And if the organizer is offering the game and people are playing it, doesn't that mean there is still demand for it?...
Allowing a campaign to exist as an unhealthy campaign that can have impact on the new campaign, means it should just die off and be relegated to home games.
The evidence from past campaigns that allowed unlimited replay, is a preponderance of negative effects overall. You can ignore what you are unaware of, and say, "yeah, but it doesn't have to be that way this time," if you want. But I think it takes a certain level of hubris to ignore history because you want something bad enough.
|
|
I would *not* argue for unlimited replay.
I've seen the corrosive effect it has had on other campaigns.
Perhaps a slightly *different* yardstick could be applied (but the fix is still grossly unfair to folks that cannot GM for any of a number of reasons)
Namely: Allow a GM to replay any scenario they've GM'd once. They may NOT replay a scenario that has already had a replay applied to it. This would be in addition to the current set-up of Replay per Star system that's in place.
Perhaps to make it fair, the Replay per Star system could be expanded to allow others to play a given game, since GMs will now have a greater flexibility based on how much they've run?
|
|
The evidence from past campaigns that allowed unlimited replay, is a preponderance of negative effects overall.
Two things...
1) You keep saying this, but I haven't seen an example of it. I will fully admit, I am not a power gamer and know of most gaming systems let along the obscure ones. Could you please give an example of this that I can look up and see what happened?2) I am NOT asking for unlimited replay. Not at all. I think the best option is a "replay one time" option. You may see it as delaying the inevitable, and in some ways it is...but there are still many people who would love to replay a game or a set of games and enjoy it one more time. Hell, there are people in my area that have been playing so long, that some of the modules were so long ago it would be LIKE a new game, not a replay.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, the bottom line is this. Keeping the replay rules as they are will drive some players away from PFS1. Opening up more opportunities for replay in PFS1 will drive some players away. What we don't know is which group is larger. PFS being a community-based campaign should almost always "side" with the majority. No rule is going to make everyone happy. The only thing we can do is try to minimize those made unhappy and if they leave, they leave. That is neither dismissive of their position nor intended to push them away. At some point, the rules are what the rules are and each of us has to decide for themself if they will enjoy playing under them. If not, go find something else.
I can only speak for myself. If replay is expanded, I'm out. I think there is already too much of it now. I hope they decide not to expand replay, but I'm not arrogant enough to blame them for doing so if that is the majority position. I'll be fine doing something else and won't hold any grudges. If it stays the same I'll continue to play PFS1 as long as I can find four other people will to do the same.
|
|
The evidence from past campaigns that allowed unlimited replay, is a preponderance of negative effects overall.Two things...
1) You keep saying this, but I haven't seen an example of it. I will fully admit, I am not a power gamer and know of most gaming systems let along the obscure ones. Could you please give an example of this that I can look up and see what happened?2) I am NOT asking for unlimited replay. Not at all. I think the best option is a "replay one time" option. You may see it as delaying the inevitable, and in some ways it is...but there are still many people who would love to replay a game or a set of games and enjoy it one more time. Hell, there are people in my area that have been playing so long, that some of the modules were so long ago it would be LIKE a new game, not a replay.
go check out almost any replay thread from the last 6 years, and somewhere in there you'll find someone posting all the reasons. I'm running out of energy to re-explain all the various real-life actual reasons that replay has destroyed campaigns in the past and are bad for organized play.
This is not a new argument.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Keeping the replay rules as they are will drive some players away from PFS1. Opening up more opportunities for replay in PFS1 will drive some players away. What we don't know is which group is larger.
We have a relatively decent idea of how bad replay is for campaigns from the D&D era. Its not great but its doable at least, especially if you have a firsties first policy in place when it comes to table sign ups.
The people most dedicated to PF 1, the ones most likely to try to keep it going, are also the ones that have played the most games and the ones that will have the hardest time playing without a change in the replay policy.
While yes, we can't KNOW which one would be worse without actually trying it, I don't think you need to go too far out on a limb to say people turned off by replay are a smaller group than people who stop playing because they run out of games or run out of enough games to readily form groups.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering that the current evidence is that everyone opposed to PFS1 replays is also fanatically dedicated to PF2 before actually seeing the rules of the game, it is very clear that they will already stop playing PFS1 midsummer 2019.
*checks notes* Man, where did I misspeak badly enough to give you that idea?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Anything EXCEPT Option 3 (expanding GM replay). Ideally Option 4 (since PFS 1.0 scenarios shouldn't affect the PFS 2.0 storyline and keeps PFS 1.0 alive longer) or Option 2 (let people enjoy a favorite character longer) if you do expand replay.
This is because people would then GM (badly) an Evergreen (least work since you can just keep running the same one) just to replay.
Option 1 is the status quo.
Option 2 makes sense, it gives people the ability to see high-level content with a favorite character.
Option 4 is the ideal. PFS 1.0 stories shouldn't affect PFS 2.0 stuff after it releases. It's not like someone shanking Ambrose Valsin in his sleep (Torch did nothing wrong!) is going to make the already printed stuff change it's text.
|
|
I have to ask why everyone is focused on GM replays and not also considering replays for players?
Hear, hear! This is why I like the idea of just starting over with PFS1 when PFS2 begins. Everyone begins with a blank slate in terms of replays, players and GMs, except a character still can't do any scenario twice, once before and once after the reset.
|
|
I have to ask why everyone is focused on GM replays and not also considering replays for players?
Because its largely considered not a good idea to open up replay for players. You'll see that argument going on in at least two other threads. I think they are trying to come up with some advantage for GMs that isn't just a race boon.
|
|
Well, see below.
And this impacts you enough to argue against post retirement replays because...?I appreciate it's a very personal situation. Please don't think I'm blindly attached to an opposing position. But EVERY loosening of replay restrictions is just used as more evidence of 'nothing bad has happened, we can go further!' and I have no doubt that people will take 1e as an example to argue for 2e to open up more replay. I'm going to be playing 1e, don't worry. I'm not just some outsider saying you can't replay because I got mine.
|
|
I have to ask why everyone is focused on GM replays and not also considering replays for players?Because its largely considered not a good idea to open up replay for players. You'll see that argument going on in at least two other threads. I think they are trying to come up with some advantage for GMs that isn't just a race boon.
Are folks who GM somehow less likely to do "bad" things than those who only play?
If you're allowing extended replays of PFS1 material post-summer 2019 for one portion of the PFS community, those who GM, you should allow extended replays for the entire PFS community. Otherwise, you're excluding a significant portion of the community from the opportunity to replay PFS1 material during the 2 or so year period when there will be only a limited amount of PFS2 scenarios.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still think that expanding replays for players is important. I don't think unlimited replay is the answer, but with no new scenarios after Gencon 2019 I don't think GM-only replay options are going to cut it, either.
New players can only join tables that make. If those tables don't make, then those players don't join. There's also a large population of PFS players who don't or shouldn't or can't GM.
I understand that there is a strong dislike of unlimited replay. I'm a little confused how the opposition to unlimited replay turned into an opposition to expanding player replay, though. Giving players, for example, 5 replays per season is vastly different from providing unlimited replay. A one-time reset of PFS played/gmed records would be somewhat different. It seems like there are an awful lot of options that shouldn't trigger the same visceral reaction, especially when people keep playing Core without complaint. Core would seem to be very strong evidence that players can replay without causing major issues, unless there have been a number of complaints about it that I haven't heard?
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
I have to ask why everyone is focused on GM replays and not also considering replays for players?
We always seem to need more GMs, and the existing GMs really would appreciate getting a break and getting to play their fair share. Anything that motivates more people to start supporting their community by sharing the GM burden is a good thing.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to be heavily in the anti-replay side of things but having gotten more into the CORE campaign lately and I have to say maybe its just because the CORE playerbase is, by its very nature, fairly mature but they have ended up being some of the most fun sessions with all players completely able and willing to suspend meta-knowledge and just have fun with it. I have to believe that this is pretty much how the majority of tables would behave in a Reset-Era PFS1 as well.
That's the entire basis for my favoring an expanded replay system all around. Perhaps not unlimited, but expanded certainly and I don't think it should be locked behind a GM screen.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a good, and simple to execute compromise is the following:
1) Anyone can replay a scenario for gold, XP and PP, but no boons or gear access. Just cross everything else off the chronicle sheet.
2) The Expanded Narrative program remains in place and allows the occasional replay with full access to goodies.
3) Evergreens are evergreen across their entire level range.
This should have several advantages:
- Easy to implement and maintain.
- Limits boon farming, thus taking away one of the grossest objections against replay.
- Playing scenarios for no special rewards puts the focus on playing it because it's a particularly fun scenario or with people you really like playing with.
- Makes scheduling simple. Scenarios with a lot of fresh faces are preferable still but a table can always make.
- Allows a group of players to play a whole PFS storyline cohesively, because the characters of the replayers level along with the firsttimers.
This should actually enable more cohesive "tours" through the museum of old PFS storylines than is currently possible. PFS1 becomes a sort of adventure path (that's not sanctioned for PFS2 credit).
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to ask why everyone is focused on GM replays and not also considering replays for players?Because its largely considered not a good idea to open up replay for players. You'll see that argument going on in at least two other threads. I think they are trying to come up with some advantage for GMs that isn't just a race boon.
To be clear, I am not in favor of unlimited replays.
Earlier in this thread I suggested allowing a player to replay every scenario an second time. I expand that idea to include GMing for credit twice as well. Of course, the restriction that a character can't have two chronicles from the same adventure on them remains. I would not start to allow this until after the official release of PF2.0. Core tables would also get this same benefit.
The way I see it, to have GMs you have to have players. So to encourage players who have played a fair share of the PFS1.0 scenarios to continue playing, let them play every scenario twice. That way, new GMs can get credits and older GMs can get credit a second time.
|
|
Anecdotal data time!
PF2e and Society play came up last night during discussions before and after an organized play session. There was significant interest in giving folks more rather than fewer replay options once PF2e comes out. For a variety of reasons, most of the people at the table seemed to hope PFS1 scenarios would continue to be available as viable organized play options for the next few years to come.
|
|
I am confused now.Has someone on this thread actually suggested "fewer replay options once PF2e comes out"?
Apologies, I meant "more rather than fewer" in a relative sense. Some of the options discussed here and elsewhere are more liberal in terms in replay than others, unlimited replay being of course the most liberal of all. I've been in favor of one of the more liberal ones, Gary Bush's "reset" proposal, and I think the conversation that I reported would support such an approach.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to insist here that I _do_ think that if this decision is handled correctly, there should still be PFS1 games being registered for credit in 8-10 years. We need to look just not at the short term of 2-3 years, but longer than that. And the only way to do this is to be very generous with replay.
|
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
I'm nervous this could be too restrictive and also difficult to administer.A thought occured to me:
How about only allowing replays only at conventions or designated game days?
The GM would not that the adventure was played at a con (and what con) or on a designated game day (which in my mind is not every game day.)
I don't see it as being overly difficult. Restrictive. Yes, but no less restrictive than what we have now or what is being considered. The the game day concept is intended to pick up those who are unable to play at Cons.
|
|
so, just to be clear (because I am kind of slow on Mondays, and I confuse easily), we are talking about modifying the rules of PFS (1st edition) "when Second Edition Launches", correct?
I mean, as soon as we come to some majority "agreement" for expanding the existing re-play rules to allow for some sort of additional replays "when Second Edition Launches", I know there will be a lot of pressure to just implement it NOW, and not wait.
and then there will be the posters pushing to "grandfather" the "new, expanded re-play rules" into the 2nd Edition Campaign... so anything we agree on will likely be ported into the "new" campaign...
My thoughts:
1) I like the idea of letting everyone have one more replay of all the PFS1 scenarios when PFS2 begins, retaining the current replay rules but wiping everyone's slate clean.
2) I see absolutely no reason to do this any sooner than the start of PFS2 and would strong oppose any effort to do so now.
3) I also see absolutely no reason why this should affect how PFS2 is organized and would also strongly oppose any effort along those lines, and I don't see how the replay solution I'm advocating could be fitted to PFS2 unless/until PFS3 comes along.
I hope this offers you some mild reassurances and contributes to the defusing of any "slippery slope"-style arguments.
|
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we delay the "letting everyone have one more replay of all the PFS1 scenarios " by some period of time AFTER the start of PFS2? I'd like to try to get my PFS1 games in before the campaign rules/environment/gamer populations changes. Thank you.so, just to be clear (because I am kind of slow on Mondays, and I confuse easily), we are talking about modifying the rules of PFS (1st edition) "when Second Edition Launches", correct?
I mean, as soon as we come to some majority "agreement" for expanding the existing re-play rules to allow for some sort of additional replays "when Second Edition Launches", I know there will be a lot of pressure to just implement it NOW, and not wait.
and then there will be the posters pushing to "grandfather" the "new, expanded re-play rules" into the 2nd Edition Campaign... so anything we agree on will likely be ported into the "new" campaign...
My thoughts:
1) I like the idea of letting everyone have one more replay of all the PFS1 scenarios when PFS2 begins, retaining the current replay rules but wiping everyone's slate clean.
2) I see absolutely no reason to do this any sooner than the start of PFS2 and would strong oppose any effort to do so now.
3) I also see absolutely no reason why this should affect how PFS2 is organized and would also strongly oppose any effort along those lines, and I don't see how the replay solution I'm advocating could be fitted to PFS2 unless/until PFS3 comes along.
I hope this offers you some mild reassurances and contributes to the defusing of any "slippery slope"-style arguments.
At least from my understanding the discussion has always been "What to do when PFS2.0 is official in August of 2019".
I agree, any change should not happen until after GenCon 2019.
|
|
I would like to see for when the Playtest begins, is the ability to play all PFS 1e content using the Home Game Mode. The Home Game Mode is already available for APs and some Modules with little issue, so it’s affects are already know.
This would allow the playing of 1e scenarios using 2e rules or other game system. This would help with the Playtest event. As per Home Game Mode Chronicles and GM credits would still be accumulated under PFS 1e as if you had played a pregen.
I believe this would be a big boon to PFS in keeping the rich heritage of scenarios, and story arcs from 1e relevant and accessible well into the future for those member who prefer 2e or a particular system, but still wish to be part of the PFS.