First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches


Pathfinder Society Playtest

201 to 250 of 734 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
The Exchange 5/5

GM Glyn wrote:

Preposed expanded Home Play Mode Option:

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.

??? I am confused by this proposal.

so... you are suggesting that if someone were to play a 1E scenario using 2e rules (or some other game system - perhaps even 1E rules?) the players/GM would then be able to gain credit "under PFS 1e as if you had played a pregen."?

what?

would this have to be a 1E scenario they had NOT previously gained credit in PFS 1E for? Or is this being suggested as a form of "re-play"? (the thread title is "First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches")

Grand Lodge 2/5

While the proposal dosen’t modify the replay rules directly it does modify how the 1e scenarios can be played and widens the potential player base and has the intent to extend the playable life span of 1e scenarios.

I though about creating a new thread, but felt it also falls within this thread’s range of discussions.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Christine Bussman wrote:
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.

This is what we're looking for. Pathfinder was originally the game for people who didn't want to adopt the New Edition. I truly believe many, if not most, of these players will eventually make their way over to the new edition if you let them move at their own pace. Telling them "You've run out of content," or "You can only play once a month when scenarios line up" wilt upset and frustrate them. You don't want to alienate your long term players. You want them to feel welcome. You want them to have the ability to keep playing their game and keep the invitation open to join the new one.

The majority of the arguments against allowing replays are backed by the suggestion that the campaign is going to die in two years, and Replay will make it die quicker. If you're writing off the campaign already then your view is too short term for this discussion. You're planning on being out in two years. The people having this conversation should be the ones who want it to reach out five, eight, ten years. This discussion is for them. It's not about trying to mollify people who are threatening to quit in a year worst case and planning to retire in two best case. If you decide to quit early so others can play for an extra decade? That's a trade worth making every day.

The Exchange 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

ok, I've been giving this a lot of thought.

First - for full disclosure: I really do NOT like Re-Play. Never have. Don't really like the re-play we have now (though I take full advantage of it! Sometimes I'm just weak I guess...)

There - now for my "silly idea".

When it rolls around to "Season 11", why not just re-number and re-issue the "Season 01" scenarios? No other changes, just the scenario number - switch the #1-29 to #11-29 and list it as a "new" scenario?

So our scenarios numbering system picks up another digit in the front, and we re-issue the Season 01 scenarios as Season 11? That gives us the same amount of "new" content each month/year. Scenarios would be "sort of new" as that they have not been played in a number of years (for some of us it will have been 10 years!), the existing support systems (tracking etc.) require very little changes - after all, we would be tracking:
Scenario #01-29: The Devil We Know—Part I: Shipyard Rats
as a different scenario than
Scenario #11-29: "The Devil We Know—Part I: Shipyard Rats"

then when Season 12 rolls around we'd get ...
Pathfinder Society Scenario #12-01: "Before the Dawn—Part I: The Bloodcove Disguise".

This would require very little work on Piazo part - and yet that very small effort they would be producing "new" products that they list and sell.

1st edition players would be able to continue the PFS1e campaign with much the same number of new scenarios each month...

"Re-plays" of scenarios would be limited to one per player (and one per Judge)...

And in 10 years? we could always do it again... Scenario #21-29: "The Devil We Know—Part I: Shipyard Rats"...

And I can get in ANOTHER 10 years of play in a Campaign sort of like PFS1e...

Or is this just a "silly idea"?

I do think that at least some of those persons pushing for "open replay" will not be happy with this, as it does still limits re-playability, and does not allow for re-playing favorite scenarios over and over.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

MrBear wrote:
Pathfinder was originally the game for people who didn't want to adopt the New Edition. I truly believe many, if not most, of these players will eventually make their way over to the new edition if you let them move at their own pace. Telling them "You've run out of content," or "You can only play once a month when scenarios line up" wilt upset and frustrate them. You don't want to alienate your long term players. You want them to feel welcome. You want them to have the ability to keep playing their game and keep the invitation open to join the new one.

I think the problem is the difference between what established players want out of the campaigns and what new players will want. Generally speaking, once 2E rolls out, new players will not be interested in PFS1/1E. So, it will have to survive on the backs of the existing players. One thing we do not know about our community is the turnover rate. How many players are long-term (say more than two years?) and how many are "new" (less than two years?).

Generally speaking, OP is not growing. Yes, we get new players, but its at a rate less than that of those who stop playing or have significantly reduced their play rate. So, as we progress, the number of people interested in playing 1E/PFS1 will dwindle. Many areas already struggle to schedule their events so any reduction in availability of players and GMs might be untenable. IMO, that more than anything else is what will eventually kill PFS1 aside from anything else we do. So, saying the campaign will die after a couple, three years is not necessarily an issue of desire, but a victim of circumstance.

Lest we forget, Paizo is still a company in the business of selling product. It would make sense that they would not go too far out of their way to incentify their customers to continue playing a system they are not producing any more content for and therefore generates little to no revenue. Now, certainly they are not going to say that because too many people will start shouting things like "cash grab," but lets all be realistic. 2E IS about money as much as it is reworking a "tired" system with a new ruleset.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

OP is not growing? Do we have statistics on that?

Now I may be weird because I play in two booming regions — Minnesota and Online. But it still seems like Organized Play has grown quite a bit since I’ve started.

Hmm

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Nosig's idea is a very interesting one, and it's almost elegant in simplicity.

I like it.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wei Ji the Learner wrote:

Nosig's idea is a very interesting one, and it's almost elegant in simplicity.

I like it.

I too like it. It is an extension of my idea with a simpler method of tracking.


My difficulty with replay is that playing with players that have already played/read the adventure is not a fun experience. There are some players that can handle it but unfortunately most cannot. I have had the same experience playing in Core. The idea of Core play is to attract new players and to limit the complexity of play but in practice it is the experienced players who have played all the available scenarios who choose to play in core as an alternative to not playing.
This is generally not a fun experience either.

Personally I think that replay should be limited to randomized Dungeon crawls evergreens (which are fantastic btw). Allowing some replay options for seasoned GMs is ok too.

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

I am not a fan of the most recent suggestion, mostly because I personally think that old scenarios are (compared to the current material) pretty damn bad.
The fact that I need to prep a #2-26 for Saturday has a lot to do with me making this comment.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland— Baltimore aka Qstor

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

OP is not growing? Do we have statistics on that?

Now I may be weird because I play in two booming regions — Minnesota and Online. But it still seems like Organized Play has grown quite a bit since I’ve started.

Hmm

Not to thread jack this but we've seen local play drop off since 5e. A bunch of players moved to AL and haven't come back. One store tha0t used to have 3 tables each week is down to one.

4/5 Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

1 person marked this as a favorite.

At the store I organize for, Adventure League died and the person who organized it joined our regular players for PFS.

I imagine some of this is variance is regional. I also recognize that there are a lot of other factors involved including social groupings of friends, where the games are hosted, and how well the host does in making it a fun and friendly experience.

It would be nice to know how the overall campaign is doing.

The Exchange 5/5

Floating this back to the top of the list, as opposed to the thread titled "Request: Unlimited 1e Replay."

In that other thread, people keep implying that they are not asking for UNLIMITED Replay - even if that is the title of the thread - they are just talking about LIMITED replay (without defining what limits we would put on it).

This thread is MUCH better. So I am trying to move the conversation over to this one where we can talk about MAYBE, to a LIMITED extent, AFTER 2E releases, some form of expanded replay IN 1stEdition ONLY.

So...

The Exchange 5/5

We need to realize that any policy expanding the existing Replay opportunities in 1e will be pushed into 2E.

For example: If we decide that persons named Bob will be able to replay scenarios that are Odd numbered (like Silent Tide 1-01) - there will be the assumption that "Odd Bob Replays" will be allowed in 2nd Edition after it releases.

Any expansion of replay opportunities allowed in 1e before the release of 2E are going to be ASSUMED to be part of 2E when it does release.

And any expansion of Replay allowed AFTER the release will be assumed to apply to 2E if it is anounced before.

This is human nature. Or at least GAMER nature. "Give an inch..." and we'll push it to the last micron of what is allowed - and anything not prohibited will be played as if it's allowed. Such is the nature of Gamers.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

From the other thread:

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
Yes, I would like to see us move forward as well. Let’s find our common ground, and figure this out without rancor or accusations.

I think there are actually several points on which there is broad agreement, though not total unanimity.

1) There are no serious requests for unlimited replay. My personal preference is for one additional replay. I think it would be the easiest scheme to implement.

2) Any replay scheme would be limited in time. It would not begin until after PFS2 begins, and it would last for only 2-4 years. It would be made very clear that such a replay scheme is for the PFS1 to PFS2 transition period only and as such would not be applicable to PFS2 either during or after the transition period.

3) Since boon-fishing is a major concern, I'd be fine with people earning generic chronicle sheets listing only XP, prestige, and gold when they use their one free additional replay for a scenario.

I'm curious as to how many folks do think these are reasonable ideas and the basis for future, productive discussions on this topic.

2/5

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
nosig wrote:

We need to realize that any policy expanding the existing Replay opportunities in 1e will be pushed into 2E.

For example: If we decide that persons named Bob will be able to replay scenarios that are Odd numbered (like Silent Tide 1-01) - there will be the assumption that "Odd Bob Replays" will be allowed in 2nd Edition after it releases.

Any expansion of replay opportunities allowed in 1e before the release of 2E are going to be ASSUMED to be part of 2E when it does release.

And any expansion of Replay allowed AFTER the release will be assumed to apply to 2E if it is anounced before.

This is human nature. Or at least GAMER nature. "Give an inch..." and we'll push it to the last micron of what is allowed - and anything not prohibited will be played as if it's allowed. Such is the nature of Gamers.

I totally disagree with this position and think it will be possible to lay out a clear, explicit, and limited replay scheme which is designed only for the PFS1 to PFS2 transition period.

The Exchange 5/5

pjrogers wrote:
nosig wrote:

We need to realize that any policy expanding the existing Replay opportunities in 1e will be pushed into 2E.

For example: If we decide that persons named Bob will be able to replay scenarios that are Odd numbered (like Silent Tide 1-01) - there will be the assumption that "Odd Bob Replays" will be allowed in 2nd Edition after it releases.

Any expansion of replay opportunities allowed in 1e before the release of 2E are going to be ASSUMED to be part of 2E when it does release.

And any expansion of Replay allowed AFTER the release will be assumed to apply to 2E if it is anounced before.

This is human nature. Or at least GAMER nature. "Give an inch..." and we'll push it to the last micron of what is allowed - and anything not prohibited will be played as if it's allowed. Such is the nature of Gamers.

I totally disagree with this position and think it will be possible to lay out a clear, explicit, and limited replay scheme which is designed only for the PFS1 to PFS2 transition period.

I really hope you are correct... but I do not think you are.

Partly because the general public is assuming that "Judge Star Re-Plays" will be a thing in 2nd edition. The debate is not IF we get replays for "Stars" but rather to what extent (not so much IF - just HOW MUCH) our Stars will transfer over to the New Campaign. "Hay! I earned the RIGHT to a replay! And I find it INSULTING that you want to TAKE THAT AWAY!".

So we are going to get something else? Not Stars? Runes? Well, how many of my Stars transfer over to the new campaign? If I have 3 Stars now, does that mean I have 1 or 2 Runes in the "New Campaign"? Why are people asking this? Is it partly because this is how many Replays they start with in the New Campaign - transferring Replays from old PFS1e to the new PFS2e... Unless we make it VERY CLEAR that something will not transfer, players will ASSUME that any privilege they have in 1e will be transfered directly to 2E.

I have already seen someone saying they were going to save their "Judge Replays" (the ones they have now in 1e) so they will be able to use them in at the start of the new campaign - after all, right after the start, there will not be as many New Scenarios as they would like. They'll want to play more. They hit that issue when Starfinder came out... more play opportunities than scenarios available to play.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

I’m happy that we’re moving the Limited Replay discussion to this thread, but am going to link back to my Summary of the Issues of Small Lodges Quality of Replay, & Ideas Going Forward. Why? I want to be able to refer to options.

PJ Rogers, thank you for listing our Common Ground! That was an excellent summation. To it I will add that we all have to find a way to make Organized Play survive this very long Playtest Transition. The long Playtest testing window is terrific for testing the Playtest, but really detrimental to the health of our Organized Play Lodges.

★ --- ★ --- ★ --- ★

SOME OF THE PROBLEMS WE HAVE LOOMING

1) Without new games, Geek Sudoku becomes harder, especially in smaller lodges.

2) Without old games, PF2 will be on a slow release, and most lodges won’t have enough to play unless they start really building up the Starfinder base. (Building a Starfinder base requires persistent introduction and offering of the game to build a clientele. You just have to keep offering it over, and over. But if it takes a while for the player base to warm up to it, it can be hard to build Starfinder up as a ‘bridge’ option, and some lodges want to concentrate on fantasy. The other issue that we face is that Starfinder does not have a huge back catalogue of games, since it’s only been out a year, and during much of that year, it was on a slow release.

3) The idea that we’re playing a ‘dead’ game is also an issue. I would love for us to avoid that terminology if we can. It’s not a dead game, it’s a campaign in transition. The story will continue under different rules. If we use that terminology around our players, we’re going to shoot ourselves in the foot and they’ll start moving off to other organized play options. We are very much a living game — that’s why there’s going to be a second edition!

4) It’s going to be hard for most lodges of whatever size to have games of Playtest, Starfinder and 1e going on at the same time. For the players, changing characters and rulesets can be challenging. Even if you’re as large and active as Minnesota, you need a reason for the players to come back to the table.

★ --- ★ --- ★ --- ★

QUESTION OF THE DAY: WILL 1E REPLAY BE EXPECTED IN 2E?

PJ Rogers wrote:
I totally disagree with this position and think it will be possible to lay out a clear, explicit, and limited replay scheme which is designed only for the PFS1 to PFS2 transition period.

I’m with PJ Rogers here, and think that it’s very possible, especially if the replay is entitled “Transition Replay”. The key is that the OPC Leadership Team needs to make some decisions soon about how all this will work, and announce it clearly, not just in the boards, but in the Roleplaying Guild Guide.

Nosig wrote:
The general public is assuming that "Judge Star Re-Plays" will be a thing in 2nd edition. The debate is not IF we get replays for "Stars" but rather to what extent (not so much IF - just HOW MUCH) our Stars will transfer over to the New Campaign. "Hay! I earned the RIGHT to a replay! And I find it INSULTING that you want to TAKE THAT AWAY!".

I suspect that there will be GM ‘Glyph’ replays in 2E, just like there are GM ‘Star’ replays in 1E. My expectation is that Glyph replays will only work in 2E, and Star replays will only work in 1E. However, my Star replays do nothing in Starfinder. In Starfinder, I only earned my first Nova a few weeks ago, and you better bet that I’m hoarding that replay option because it’s the only one I have available.

If we explain that Glyphs are for 2E, and Stars are for 1E, the replay question becomes clarified. I’m just hoping that it’s soon.

I had a big old rant a while back when this change was first announced, and it was announced that our Stars were not carrying over into the new Campaign. I’ve since gotten over it. My Stars will remain on my profile as a mark of acheivement. The one thing about them that I would like to see carry over into 2E was the bonus they gave my rerolls. But... If that has to go away in order for all of us to have clean break, so be it.

I’m also hoping that we figure out soon how limited replay will happen in 1E. I like the idea of replay with a Generic Chronicle Sheet once to prevent boon-farming, so long as ‘fresh players’ — those playing for the first time — are given precedence for seating over re-players. We still want this to be a game of discovery.

Hmm

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

2 people marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:
I totally disagree with this position and think it will be possible to lay out a clear, explicit, and limited replay scheme which is designed only for the PFS1 to PFS2 transition period.

I have to agree with nosig, as every loosening of replay has been used to call for more. You are absolutely correct that the rules must be very clear to combat that problem.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

Agreed. But I think it’s possible to wordsmith this. I do think that the name we give for LIMITED TRANSITION REPLAY is important too. I don’t know what the final name for it should be, but I do know that’s important to call out that the replay is connected to the transition period.

Hmm

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I imagine a reasonable portion of 'replay for lewt' would go away if the unique boons/items on earlier sheets were opened up to 'any character the player has'.

I know I've played several scenarios where I've been at the end "SONUVA- I played the WRONG character for this!"

And I know that I am not alone in that regard. If unique items were bind-on-player (Ex: Averakan Arbiter, Oread) throughout, then there would be FAR less of that inferred *need* to 'farm the scenario'.

In that vein, the pressure of 'must play THIS scenario' would ease significantly, and it would also make 'generic' chronicles less "Well, I got 'something' and more "I don't have to worry about the special stuff, I already played this so I have it."

It's a thought, and feedback on it would be appreciated.

EDIT: When such things would be 'bind on player' if they had limited usages or rarity, that original rarity would apply. I don't think we need to see forty thousand intelligent items in the campaign all thinking "Bub?".

Shadow Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East aka thistledown

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm not a fan of generic chronicles, as it will result in characters getting blander. But if that's the price of more replay's, it's not terrible.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Just to be clear, we're not talking about expanding any replay until AFTER PFS2 launches and PFS1 loses its content support. Correct?

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

That was my take on this conversational thread, yes.

2/5

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Just to be clear, we're not talking about expanding any replay until AFTER PFS2 launches and PFS1 loses its content support. Correct?

Correct, and for a finite amount of time. At least, that is my strong preference.

5/5 ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't believe I have seen any calls for opening up an immediate open replay, the thrust of all the dialogue has been about it occurring at the cessation of PFS1 support.

The Exchange 5/5

Shifty wrote:
I don't believe I have seen any calls for opening up an immediate open replay, the thrust of all the dialogue has been about it occurring at the cessation of PFS1 support.

Perhaps not in the same post, perhaps not in the same thread.

But posts/threads for "immediate expanded replay"? - these we see at least one every six months or so.

Posts/Threads for "full open replay (qualified on start time) now that 1e is ending" - I think we have seen several of these sense the anouncement of 2E.

So, the two together? Perhaps not. But should we have an anouncement detailing some type of "Expanded Replay options", I am sure that there will be the push to make it "effectively immediately" along with the assumption that it will be grandfathered into 2E.

Perhaps I am wrong in that prediction... But I don't think so.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Has any one done a survey on why people play in organized play? Statistics in this area may help inform whether there is any type of replay that would be beneficial. Here are some that occur to me (but only some of which apply to me).

1. The convenience of playing in a time slot of choice (applies to on-line play).

2. The convenience of not having to commit to a time and day on an on-going basis (applies to a greater extent to on-line play but applicable to cons and store venues too).

3. The desire to meet different players.

4. The desire to meet different characters.

5. The desire to see many different character concepts/classes/feats in action.

6. Cannot find a home game (for various possible reasons including limited player base in the area, do not like the player base in the area, the player base in the area does not like you).

7. Many home games do not last long.

8. Prefer the consistency of scenarios that are run as written (more limited GM flexibility).

9. Defined and more predictable character progression opportunities.
10. The desire to show off your character to the greatest number of people.

11. The rewards accrued in organized play.

12. The desire to maintain a healthy player base for the game by recruiting more players.

13. The desire not to play regularly with the same people.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pink Dragon, you’re missing the most important ones on my list!

14. Explore, Cooperate, Report! The ability to have a team that works together and is mission oriented rather than one that stabs you in the back. The teamwork — that’s the number one thing that keeps pulling me back.

15. Strong & Visibile Story Goals. Each session, you accomplish a mission. That these missions build towards a greater society storyline is awesome, but your progress is visible.

16. International community. This is especially true of online play. When I oversaw Cosmic Captive, I had GMs from Austraila, the Netherlands, Indonesia and Singapore. At PaizoCon this year, I get to meet one of my Aussie players, who’s flying in. At PaizoCon last year, I get to sit at Netherlander Tineke Bolleman’s fantastic 5 star confirmation table and throw a frat party in House of Harmonious Wisdom.

17. Everyone wants to be there. They’re there to game, and they’re focused on the game. Home games tend to have players who tune out, or who are there only to be semi-social with friends. I don’t see that in Organized Play.

18. Shared Storylines means stories that you can share with friends — “Oh, how did you handle the Pie Fight in 3-14, the Unlife of Pie? I managed to stagger them with my cone of Ice Cream, and then my friend Zorg shouted, ‘You want a piece of this? Well, BITE ME!’”

19. Kick-Ass Writing. The scenarios have really different sorts of stories and more varieties in the kind of stories they tell then a home game might. Linda, John and Thursty are awesome and sometimes evil... But they challenge and surprise us.

20. A variety of the types of stories. In organized play, we go all over the world to different settings and have so many different sorts of stories. We don’t just kill people and take their stuff (though we do that too...) I really like the variety of what we get to do in a PFS campaign.

Hmm


PFS Option 6... 7 ... maybe 42 at this point?

So I've been thinking about this, and here's what I'd propose on handling Pathfinder Society Classic, while we move to New Pathfinder Society and after (yes, the Coca Cola joke is intentional for those old enough): Crowd Source it.

I get that Paizo will not be doing new modules or formalized seasons for Classic PFS once 2nd Ed launches. That's cool for Paizo the company. While PFS could evergreen everything, it looses some of the flavor, as well as the fun of saying 'yeah, we did that once.. here's the story.'

It is going to be a bit before New Pathfinder, and by extension, new Pathfinder Society comes online, and some of us aren't super ready to learn yet another new system because the powers that be like planned obsolescence. I can't blame them, it's been a decade, and honestly 1st Ed has gotten to Star Fleet Battles levels of complexity.

However, dumping the whole old edition presents a real downer for those who spent large amounts supporting Paizo over the years and who like the idea of Pathfinder Society, and who may not want to start over. Also, it's a bit rough on the Friendly Neighborhood gaming stores, who bought Pathfinder sourcebooks to sell to their customers and now don't have the demand at all, possibly.

So what we have right now is a win/loose to a loose/loose as in, Paizo wins by getting people to buy another edition just to stay with PFS, or loose/loose, which is they just move onto another system or company, and either case the local gaming stores end up loosing possibly by being stuck with an unsalable product, or one that won't sell at retail anymore.

Why do gaming stores matter? They're the gaming systems diplomats. This is the first place people tend to get introduced to new systems, a chance to see it's value and invest by buying their own books. They also tend to run on very tight margins. PFS is a large chunk of that free advertising.

Right now, the PFS sails are slack, and the ship drifts a bit rudderless, after years of being blown by powerful myth arcs, fun adventures, and good old fashion goblin chaos. Sorry captain, just calling it like I see it.

Okay, here's what I'd do to keep the PFS Classic Ball rolling both once we go into new edition and beyond: We Crowd Source it.

Take your top ten Venture Captains and form a PFS Classic module approval board from volunteers. Let them take submissions in from the fan base, and maybe once a quarter they approve a new Pathfinder Society Classic Scenario. Structure legal appropriately and perhaps generously to approved modules, so everyone wins. And hey, if anything's particularly good and exciting, it can be converted to new PFS.

Also, I'd do classic consolidated books. Classic Ultimate Spells (every single classic spell, one source), Classic Classes and archetypes, with full level advancement tables for all classes, and if there is room, Prestige classes. And finally, allow racial unlocks for players in Society. Maybe a 1x a year 1 of anything you want or something.

In the end, Everyone wins. The old books keep selling decently, because there's a demand, even if not as much. Old players can keep what they've done and join New PFS as they're ready. Paizo doesn't maintain PFS Classic, the fans do for as long as they want it. All Paizo does is keep the website's lights on and let them run tables at 'cons. And Paizo gets great ideas from the field, and the PFS fans don't feel left out in the cold.

Oh well, enough from me. I've been enjoying 1st Ed PFS, and have ordered 2nd ED Pathfinder to playtest when it's ready.

1/5

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

Having been part of a 'crowd-sourced' campaign for an extended period one is DRAMATICALLY understating the work required for such a thing.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arken wrote:
Right now, the PFS sails are slack, and the ship drifts a bit rudderless, after years of being blown by powerful myth arcs, fun adventures, and good old fashion goblin chaos. Sorry captain, just calling it like I see it.

I am curious about other people's observations, because all the PFS disinterest I have witnessed began the day Paizo announced that PFS ends with season 10.

I also need to emphasize, I have not seen any new disinterest in Pathfinder Version 1, but disinterest in Pathfinder Society for the rest of this year and next year. Some people are finishing up their high-level characters, but I am one of few madmen I know of who are actually making new characters.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

I have honestly seen a downward slide of PFS participation since before the 2E announcement. I'm sure there is some effect there, but my old guard was already rarely showing up beforehand. New players have continued to show up, even if they know about 2E already.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This season seems a little light on the high level stuff. With leveling up through starfinder i just have had no interest in going through the building levels to get somewhere that won't exist.

The Exchange 5/5

Just before the announcement for Second Edition I started playing at a new venue across town from my usual haunts. I've switched over to the new place totally now.

It was a "new" location and has some VERY nice features and ... but this isn't about the venue. I am instead going to try to talk about the "... downward slide of PFS participation ..." that some of the old hands appear to have encountered.

In the time sense the announcement for Second Editions' release the numbers of players at the new location (IMHO) I am playing at has steadily increased. I can say this for sure as I am often the judge who steps forward to run Intro scenarios for the Newbies - who ensures that the newer players get off on a good foot and enjoy the game and MAYBE even come back to play again. While at the same time getting them used to filling out the CRs and the necessary paperwork and getting them player numbers etc. Over the course of the last couple months we've added a number of "new" regular players, attracted a couple others from different venues (like myself) and may have lost some of our "old hands" - I'm not sure of that last though, as we have had to add another regular table, so it might be that we have several "older hands" that drift in and out each week... depending on their unique schedules.

Anyway - is there a "... downward slide of PFS participation ..." sense the announcement? I'm not seeing it. Maybe the other venues in town are seeing it... we do seem to be stealing a few players from them... But then I can also recall hearing about the "death of PFS" or it's impending demise sense sometime in season 5. Or was it 4? I'm sure someone with a better search fu then I have can pull up threads about it from back then.

But I am seeing less activity on the boards. And perhaps a bit less "Screaming Meltdowns" and name calling... but then I think that actually has more to do with the Web Site Re-Design than a loss of people... I know I post a lot less, often because I actually have a LOT more trouble even finding anything. I'll read something, step away to digest it and then when I look for the thread again I simply can't find it... Oh, I'm sure it's there, it's just that I normally access using my I-Pad... and navigating the web pages on it is a challenge. Often to much to even bother to take the time. If I can't find something after a few minutes I just let it go...

SO I guess I'll drift away now. Perhaps next week sometime I'll find this thread again and read other posters comments and expand on this more... or perhaps not.

In any event - Happy Gaming! And here's hoping First Edition Play is still available after the launch of 2E - esp. if 2E is as bad as 2Ed. D&D was...

The Exchange 1/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Agent aka Shaudius

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
shalandar wrote:
Tallow wrote:
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.

I know I am really late to this, but I see this talked about in all the replay threads and having been involved in organized play since 1997, I can't really find a basis for this "real-life actual reasons that replay has destroyed campaigns in the past and are bad for organized play."

The major organized play campaigns I can think of and have been involved in:

Living City - Did not have any replay and in fact if you ran a scenario before you played it you could not play it.

Living Greyhawk - Same thing.

Both of those before PFS and AL were the most successful organized play campaigns ever. Unlimited replay didn't kill them, for Living City it was the conversion to 3rd edition being a cluster, followed by the success of LG, followed by Wizards pulling the plug in 2004 that killed it.

For Living Greyhawk, it was a straight WotC fiat decision that killed it without warning announced at a Gen Con keynote speech. I personally didn't play organized play for years because of how WotC handled the ending of Living Greyhawk. Its likely why Paizo is handling PFS1.0 ending the way they are. People, especially people like Erik Mona remember the crapfest that was 3.0 conversion of LC and the ending of LG.

The other contemporary campaigns, Living Death and Living Jungle, mostly, no replay either.

So now we get to 4th edition, here we have Living Forgotten Realms and Ashes of Athas, I can't really speak to the latter, so maybe this is the example people are talking about but Living Forgotten Realms ran until 2014 so when 5th edition launched. I didn't enjoy LFR but it had nothing to do with its expanded replay and much more to do with not liking 4th edition.

So is LFR the example we're using? If so there's way more going on here than simply expanded replay opportunity, heck, AL has much looser replay options than PFS and it seems to be doing well enough for itself.

In short, the problem has never been expanded replay that kills campaigns, its been other factors, any claim to the contrary has at best one data point unless I'm missing something major here, which I don't believe I am.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Eastern Eurasia-Africa

Shaudius wrote:


Living City - Did not have any replay and in fact if you ran a scenario before you played it you could not play it.

Living Greyhawk - Same thing.

Both of those before PFS and AL were the most successful organized play campaigns ever. Unlimited replay didn't kill them, for Living City it was the conversion to 3rd edition being a cluster, followed by the success of LG, followed by Wizards pulling the plug in 2004 that killed it....

So: The two most successful organized play campaigns ever didn't have any replay at all. That's two more datapoints against replay.

The Exchange 1/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Agent aka Shaudius

Auke Teeninga wrote:
So: The two most successful organized play campaigns ever didn't have any replay at all. That's two more datapoints against replay.

No, no it's not, just because successful campaigns didn't have replay it does not follow that a campaign with replay would be worse or less successful. Who is to say they wouldn't have been even more successful with replay.

I mean to accept the opposite would mean that PFS would be better if it had no GM credit, if you couldn't earn replay with credits, and if you ran a scenario you couldn't play it, afterall those are all features of LC and LG.

The Exchange 5/5

Shaudius wrote:
Auke Teeninga wrote:
So: The two most successful organized play campaigns ever didn't have any replay at all. That's two more datapoints against replay.

No, no it's not, just because successful campaigns didn't have replay it does not follow that a campaign with replay would be worse or less successful. Who is to say they wouldn't have been even more successful with replay.

I mean to accept the opposite would mean that PFS would be better if it had no GM credit, if you couldn't earn replay with credits, and if you ran a scenario you couldn't play it, afterall those are all features of LC and LG.

And i can honestly say that yes... perhaps that would make for a better campaign. Having more than once played in a game with a judge who had run the game before and totally could not control expressing his opinions on how the game should be run. How each encounter should go down and how our current judge was not "running it correctly". Sometimes expressing this to the judge, other times waiting until they are distracted to just tell some of the other players why it's not being run right. Doesn't happen often, but it does happen.

Or having to sit thru one of the players discussing the scenario with the Judge - BEFORE THE GAME STARTS. Thinking they are "being secretive" but "talking around" the exact make-up of what we'll be facing... sigh. Yeah.

Me: "Guys - I'd really like to just find out the story as we play it..."
Informed player "Heck, it's not like I told you the BBE is a Bard or anything"
Sigh.

Yeah.

My suggestion would be to go back and read some of the other threads where many of us have posted on why "replay" (yeah, even the limited amount we have now) is NOT good for the campaign. But I really don't expect to change your opinion.

PFS actually had "open Replay" briefly in Season Zero. You were allowed to play any scenario once with a PC of each faction. At that time there were only 5 factions. But each had it's own faction missions - so each time you were playing it was sort of/slightly different. Thankfully that did not last long and TPTB decided to adopt the LG policy of "no Replay". And at that time there wasn't even an option to get a CR (though we often called them "Certs" back then) for running the game.

So... yeah, there was no Replays in LG and LC, and both those campaigns ran LARGE followings and ran a long time. Has there been ANY campaign that has run for as large a following that has run as long that allowed Replays? I don't know of one - except maybe PFS. In a limited fashion.

But I guess we can always change the past formula. Maybe the restricted Replay options didn't help make those other campaigns so successful. After all, just because the formula worked three times before (LC, LG, PFS), doesn't mean we need to stick with it. What do we have to loose? If we allow expanded Replay and it helps kill the New Campaign, we can always just move on to something else right? We only loose out on what? Six, Eight, Ten years of gaming in a large successful campaign?

The Exchange 1/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Agent aka Shaudius

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:


My suggestion would be to go back and read some of the other threads where many of us have posted on why "replay" (yeah, even the limited amount we have now) is NOT good for the campaign. But I really don't expect to change your opinion.

There is a big difference between "Replay is not good for the campaign" and "Replay has killed other organized play campaigns." The former can have arguments for and against it, the latter is an appeal to some sort of empirical fact that, best I can tell, is made up.

nosig wrote:


So... yeah, there was no Replays in LG and LC, and both those campaigns ran LARGE followings and ran a long time. Has there been ANY campaign that has run for as large a following that has run as long that allowed Replays? I don't know of one - except maybe PFS. In a limited fashion.

As long? Not yet, but AL is entering its 4th year and is, it appears, more popular than PFS in many areas. It will likely last until WotC kills it with 6th edition (if such a thing happens, they've really slowed down the D&D production to the point where it may not happen for a decade.)

The Exchange 5/5

Shaudius wrote:
nosig wrote:


My suggestion would be to go back and read some of the other threads where many of us have posted on why "replay" (yeah, even the limited amount we have now) is NOT good for the campaign. But I really don't expect to change your opinion.

There is a big difference between "Replay is not good for the campaign" and "Replay has killed other organized play campaigns." The former can have arguments for and against it, the latter is an appeal to some sort of empirical fact that, best I can tell, is made up.

nosig wrote:


So... yeah, there was no Replays in LG and LC, and both those campaigns ran LARGE followings and ran a long time. Has there been ANY campaign that has run for as large a following that has run as long that allowed Replays? I don't know of one - except maybe PFS. In a limited fashion.
As long? Not yet, but AL is entering its 4th year and is, it appears, more popular than PFS in many areas. It will likely last until WotC kills it with 6th edition (if such a thing happens, they've really slowed down the D&D production to the point where it may not happen for a decade.)

Sorry - I watched as AL moved into my area ... and failed to gain the following PFS has. I would have a real problem finding a game of it in my area currently (it would be easier to find SFS) - so I guess I am not in one of the "many areas" you mention. I can find PFS 3 days a week.

But that's just comparing Wizard Wands - "my game is bigger than yours". PFS grew out of LG (and a little out of LC), PFS2 will be growing out of PFS. When we made the transition from LG we discussed what elements to retain and what parts to change. "Replay" was briefly tried and rejected.

In the New Campaign, I'm hoping we reset the "Replay" options back to even more limited than we have now... though I don't think we'll get that. It's hard to restrict privileges that have been granted - even when they are hurting the organization.

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

People seem to really have a problem with the idea of a net benefit or a net loss.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Who would those people be?

The Exchange 1/5 ⦵⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Agent aka Shaudius

nosig wrote:


Sorry - I watched as AL moved into my area ... and failed to gain the following PFS has. I would have a real problem finding a game of it in my area currently (it would be easier to find SFS) - so I guess I am not in one of the "many areas" you mention. I can find PFS 3 days a week.

Seems not but watching the play numbers at Origins, Gen Con, PAX Unplugged (now granted AL was the only official event in the program) AL is widely popular and likely more popular than PFS overall, this has many factors (brand recognition being a major one) but unlimited replay does not appear to be killing it.

nosig wrote:
But that's just comparing Wizard Wands - "my game is bigger than yours". PFS grew out of LG (and a little out of LC), PFS2 will be growing out of PFS. When we made the transition from LG we discussed what elements to retain and what parts to change. "Replay" was briefly tried and rejected.

If we're not talking about comparing Wizard Wands, what are we talking about. If the "kill a campaign" meant anything besides "make it have less players" then its a completely subjective assertion, namely that it negatively affected THAT person's play experience but how do we know it was a net negative and didn't enhance others play experiences?

"Replay" wasn't briefly tried and then rejected. It was tried in a particular fashion (once per faction) and then changed. It was rejected we wouldn't have, 1) evergreens and 2) GM Star Replays which have actually expanded over the years to a boon specific refresh to anyone can do it based on number of stars, the opportunities for replay in PFS are greater than they've ever been outside of year zero as you tell it.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

1 person marked this as a favorite.

That came seasons later. At least three. I don't recall any replay when I started playing in Season 3.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Eastern Eurasia-Africa

Shaudius wrote:
I mean to accept the opposite would mean that PFS would be better if it had no GM credit, if you couldn't earn replay with credits, and if you ran a scenario you couldn't play it, afterall those are all features of LC and LG.

Yeah, PFS added things on top of the old LG ways.

GM credit was added so at venues with a limited amount of players characters of people who GMmed more would be able to keep up with people who didn't run (as much), so they wouldn't be locked into GMming.

The ability to play after running was introduced so people would be more willing to run games and not be punished for stepping up. The assumption was that people willing to eat a scenario would be able to play without spoiling.

GM star replay was added as a reward for GMs and give them a chance to replay an adventure were the play experience was botched, like a severely unprepared or bad GM.

The new evergreens are special as they really don't have a story that can be spoiled and a choice of different encounters so it's unlikely you'll face the same enemies the second or third time.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:

Or having to sit thru one of the players discussing the scenario with the Judge - BEFORE THE GAME STARTS. Thinking they are "being secretive" but "talking around" the exact make-up of what we'll be facing... sigh. Yeah.

Me: "Guys - I'd really like to just find out the story as we play it..."
Informed player "Heck, it's not like I told you the BBE is a Bard or anything"
Sigh.

This can happen no matter what. There are always jerks around who know more about a scenario/monster than they should or use knowledge their character wouldn't have...replay, GM, or just from talking to a friend.

GM: Make a Knowledge(religion) check
Jerky Player: No need, I know what the monster is. It can poison with it's mouth and it has stench when you get close. They have a low Armor Class, so just use ranged weapons and we'll kill it super easy.
GM: How could you know that? You're only level 3.
Jerky Player: I encountered them before with another character (or) I read through the monster manual one night when I was bored (or) My friend told me to watch out for them, as his group was almost killed (or) It's obvious it's a XXX. Just look at the picture you gave us.

Scarab Sages 5/5

I really urge people to go back and read all those old replay threads. There is a ton of actual good information on which campaigns had unlimited replay and why that replay was bad for those campaigns.

It really is pointless to continue arguing about the reasons many of us feel replay is bad until those threads have been gone over by respondants wanting replay.

The Exchange 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
I totally disagree with this position and think it will be possible to lay out a clear, explicit, and limited replay scheme which is designed only for the PFS1 to PFS2 transition period.
I have to agree with nosig, as every loosening of replay has been used to call for more. You are absolutely correct that the rules must be very clear to combat that problem.

are we still talking about Replay Rules in 1st edition play? or has the thread now made the transition to Replay Rules in 2nd edition play? Because that seems (IMHO) to be what the current posters are assuming - that whatever rules get adopted for 1st Ed. will be grandfathered directly into 2nd Edition.

And if we are talking about Replay Rules for 2nd Edition PFS, I would like to see them rolled back.

But realizing that that will never happen, we almost never remove privileges once they are established, can we at least not grant additional replay instances? This is why I suggested my "silly idea" above.

Proposal - When it rolls around to "Season 11", can we/they just re-number and re-issue the "Season 01" scenarios? No other changes, just the scenario number - switch the #1-29 to #11-29 and list it as a "new" scenario? giving us "new" content in the form of 10 year old scenarios... at the same rate we have content released now.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The following is a very selfish request. Sorry.

Can we please not sanction any major expansion to the existing replay rules until after the release date of 2e.

Please.

I would like a chance to play at least part of Season 9 and 10 before I have to sit thru someone else's Groundhog Day.

201 to 250 of 734 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Playtest / First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches All Messageboards