First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches


Pathfinder Society Playtest

251 to 300 of 734 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
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.

FWIW (which is probably not much), I have always tried to use this thread to only discuss an expanded, but nonetheless limited system of replay for the PFS1 to PFS2 transition period. As I've written on a number of occasions, I don't think this system should go into effect until August 2019, and it should only last for a period of 2-4 years.

Personally, I'm quite happy with the current PFS replay rules and would be fine with having them adopted without change for PFS2. However, that is a separate discussion from the focus of this thread, and if folks want to discuss replay for PFS2, I would encourage them to start a separate thread so as to avoid any confusion.

The Exchange 5/5

Can you please expand on the phrase "the PFS1 to PFS2 transition period"?

I am not currently aware of any period of time that we are expecting to have a Transition from one to the other - as both campaigns are distinct items. I expect that a number of people will be active in both, as we have a number of players active in both PFS and SFS. Two distinct campaigns, each with with it's own unique PCs/Campaign Rules/Rule Systems. Other than a sharing of players, I don't think there will be anything else that Transitions from one campaign to the other (at least I personally hope not). The assumption that there is going to be a "Transition" may be what is fueling the push to enact Expanded Replay NOW - so that more replay opportunities will then be "Transitioned"/grandfathered into the new Campaign.

If 2nd Ed. is an acceptable game, I expect that PFS1e will be winding down over time, with fewer and fewer players active in it. But I really don't think there will be anything like a "PFS1 to PFS2 transition period", and certainly not a formal one. One area/venue may cut over directly, with no PFS1 offered past a fixed date, while just down the street another area/venue (or heck, another gaming group in the same venue) may decide to "give it a year" to be sure PFS2 is going to get off the ground before they commit to even one table of PFS2 offered.

Has there been some type of announcement about a "PFS1 to PFS2 transition period"? If so, what does this "Transition" entail? What is being transitioned from one campaign to the other?

3/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

The problem with replay being for GMs only is situations like ours--

We have a small group. We only rarely have to cancel a table, but often have to run with 3 and a pregen. (We only have one table per night as I am the only GM).

My son and I play at conventions, but no one else in the group do.

So scenarios my son has played at conventions (other than evergreens), I either have to not bring him the night I run it (sucks for him since it's the one thing we do together during the week) and risks the table not making since we often have only 2-4 people plus him and I- so if one more person than usual misses, the game just can't go.

Or I have to just schedule around what he and I have done at the Conventions-- effectively locking the rest of the players out of ever playing those games.

If he had some method to replay even a handful of scenarios, it would allow me to schedule the stuff we already played at the con and know that I'm going to be able to offer that to the players.

Jarlsblood Witch Saga stands out- it was a great scenarios, I know several of my players would really enjoy it, but because my son and I already played it, I don't know that I can schedule it.

2/5

nosig wrote:

Can you please expand on the phrase "the PFS1 to PFS2 transition period"?

"Transition" is entirely my term, and I apologize if it's confusing or gave the sense that something official had been announced.

I use the word to mean the period of 2-4 years after the launch of PFS2 when there will still be a significant number of people playing PFS1 but no new PFS1 content will be produced.

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5 Venture-Agent

Tallow wrote:
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.

If you can't name them nor link to specific threads where they are discussed then I'm not sure under what pretense I'm supposed to just take your word for it, based on my 20 years of organized play experience I don't believe it's true and since the burden is on the person making the claim to back it up, I dismiss your claim without evidence.

I was able to find one thread where Wei Ji references replay ruining a campaign he was involved in for years with people farming boons, this thread was from 2017 but he actually doesn't name the campaign. I'm not sure what to make of that nor could I find another thread with any less vague a reference.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Shaudius wrote:
Tallow wrote:
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.
If you can't name them nor link to specific threads where they are discussed then I'm not sure under what pretense I'm supposed to just take your word for it, based on my 20 years of organized play experience I don't believe it's true and since the burden is on the person making the claim to back it up, I dismiss your claim without evidence.

I'm pretty sure others have linked to those past threads.

And as I said earlier, I'm not really interested in rehashing arguments I've had, literally, 20 times already. But just to appease at least a little, LFR is one campaign that got ruined by replay I believe.

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5 Venture-Agent

Tallow wrote:


And as I said earlier, I'm not really interested in rehashing arguments I've had, literally, 20 times already. But just to appease at least a little, LFR is one campaign that got ruined by replay I believe.

Which had the same replay rules as the currently widely popular WotC campaign, Adventurers League, and which ran for the duration of 4th edition.

So I'm not sure how anyone can argue replay kills campaigns when you have confounding factors including the wide unpopuarility of 4th edition, and you have a current campaign, Adventurers league, is doing just fine with unlimited replay.

You're more than welcome to your opinion about unlimited replay and argue that it is not good, healthy, etc. But this idea that it kills campaigns is just supported by the evidence and does not stand as an argument on its own merits.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Shaudius wrote:
Tallow wrote:


And as I said earlier, I'm not really interested in rehashing arguments I've had, literally, 20 times already. But just to appease at least a little, LFR is one campaign that got ruined by replay I believe.

Which had the same replay rules as the currently widely popular WotC campaign, Adventurers League, and which ran for the duration of 4th edition.

So I'm not sure how anyone can argue replay kills campaigns when you have confounding factors including the wide unpopuarility of 4th edition, and you have a current campaign, Adventurers league, is doing just fine with unlimited replay.

You're more than welcome to your opinion about unlimited replay and argue that it is not good, healthy, etc. But this idea that it kills campaigns is just supported by the evidence and does not stand as an argument on its own merits.

Based on all those other threads and discussions that I've been involved in over he last 7 years I've been involved in PFS, and multitudes of people who had been involved in several organized play campaigns, their experience directly refutes yours. Go read those other threads.

The Exchange 5/5

Ok. I'll give it a try - here's a dozen or so links to other threads addressing the Replay policy in PFS and why it is what it is... but I am sure this is a VERY limited picture, as it's just some of the threads I actually commented on. Oh! and the Date of one of my comment comments on that thread...

Apr 10, 2014 - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qvq6?Because-PFS-Scenarios-are-not-replayable- for#5

May 10, 2017 - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ubm2&page=3?Really-dont-like-PFS-replay-ru les#118

May 5, 2014, - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qz67?Dealing-with-falling-attendance#11

Jan 29, 2013 - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pf6i&page=2?PFS-Replayability-value#83

May 5, 2014 - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qogp&page=2?Replaying-Scenarios#73

Jun 1, 2016 - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tp41&page=2?Proposed-Rule-Change-for-Seaso n-8-Unlimited#82

Feb 12, 2016, - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2takw&page=5?Thoughts-on-Laxing-the-Replayi ng-Policies#221

Aug 22, 2016, - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2tuxv?Replaying-Scenarios-4-years-played#29

Nov 18, 2012, - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2p68x?With-great-risk-comes-no-reward#10

Jul 11, 2017 - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2ugad?Using-different-replays-on-the-same-scena rio#13

Feb 9, 2012 - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2nlg2&page=2?Whipping-that-dead-horse#59

Apr 23, 2014, - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qwqy?Replaying#12

May 3, 2018, - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2uycc&page=3?Request-Unlimited-1e-replay#14 8

Not that I expect to change anyone's opinion on this. I am pretty sure we have reach the "My Mind Is Made Up. Don’t Confuse Me With the Facts" stage with everyone involved.

Edit to add another...

May 7, 2014 - http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qogp&page=5?Replaying-Scenarios#211

The Exchange 5/5

Here we go... a lovely post by Drogon back in May of 2014, so about four years old now?

here's a link to the thread:
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qogp&page=5?Replaying-Scenarios#229

from Drogon- Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds (5 star if it matters)
"No Credit Replay" leads to "For Credit Replay" equals a slippery slope argument. I get that.

But my slippery slope argument began long ago. I've been fighting this battle for years, starting in 2010 with a truly bitter knock-down, drag-out fight with a store owner in Pennsylvania. I'm pretty sure he still can't stand me to this day, even though he currently has one of the more successful PFS programs in the country and never needed replay to accomplish it. Since then I have predicted every step.

I can look all the way up my slippery slope and see to the top where "You cannot replay a scenario for any reason" is the signpost.

Next down is a beaten, burned, and abused signpost that says "Play Play Play" surrounded by bones and weapons, the detritus of many battles.

Next down is one that says, "You may replay a scenario if you are the fourth player at the table, thus making it a legal table for play." Just under that in confusing lettering is one that might or might not say, "Or the third, thus giving the GM a GMPC." And underneath that is a faded and possible "Or the third and fourth, of course..." with a tiny little question that says, "What if I'm the second and my friends are the third and fourth? Is it okay then?" that doesn't want to get noticed because the answer is likely one the asker won't agree with.

Next down is "You can replay a scenario that is Tier 1, only, and only with a new 1st level PC with no xp."

Next signpost down reads "You can replay a scenario that is Tier 1 any number of times with a 1st level PC (with 0, 1, or 2 xp), and once with a 2nd level PC."

Next one down reads, "GMs may replay scenarios for credit a number of times in their career equal to the number of stars they have." Just underneath that is one that reads "Perhaps we'll allow GMs a number of replays per YEAR equal to their stars."

So I turn and look down the slope and the next sign I read says, "You may replay for no credit."

After that is a cliff. At the bottom of that cliff lies a dead and broken Living Forgotten Realms campaign.

You're frustrating me by telling me that my view of history is an internet fallacy.

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5 Venture-Agent

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I'll respond further later but suffice it to say I looked at at least three of those threads so far and they all see vague references to replay killing previous with limited to no actual reference to the campaign(s?) They're talking about and it's taken as gospel truth nevermind the fact that a campaign that is arguably more popular than pfs has unlimited replay AT THIS VERY MOMENT and shows zero sign of dying. Could it possibly be that that previous campaign died for reasons completely unrelated to replay, nope that's impossible. I repeat, LFR did not die because of unlimited replay, it died because fourth edition wasn't good and WotC killed it when 4th edition ended.

At this point all I see is echo chamber of the same people repeating the same vague point over the course of years and everyone accepting it as canonical I'm sorry but that's not how argumentation works.

So can, again, we please stop citing LFR for anything because again there is a current widely popular campaign with the same replay rules as LFR that shows no sign of dying. Furthermore, even if we accept that replay killed LFR, Adventures League shows us that that doesn't have to be the case so there's basically zero probative value to be gained by citing this as an example as to why replay is bad.

Tell you what, let's try a thought experiment, eliminate unlimited replay from Adventures League, do you think it'd be more or less popular, if you say more popular tell me the reasons why. Those are the reasons why you support limited replay for its campaign killing effects not because of some sort of appeal to history.

The Exchange 5/5

nosig wrote:
....I am pretty sure we have reached the "My Mind Is Made Up. Don’t Confuse Me With the Facts" stage with everyone involved...

Time for me to just move on...

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Some will always protest, ask for more or etc, when it's better to grab what they can but not wasting more breath. Short and blunt, because I'm fed up to always hear the same protagonist(s).

Adventurer's League is bad because of the unlimited replay. But some are oblivious to the dangers of that, obviously.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Some should ask themselves on why they're constantly opposed, instead ?

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5 Venture-Agent

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Philippe Lam wrote:
Some should ask themselves on why they're constantly opposed, instead ?

Constantly opposed or looking back at these threads is it the same 5-6 people making this same argument over the course of half a decade without being challenged because it looks to me like it's the latter.

Longevity in making a bad argument doesn't make it a right argument.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Burden of proof is on the one alleging allowing unlimited replays won't hurt, not on those who say that will cause problems, because there are already proofs of the latter. Thinking to have a right cause doesn't make it a right cause.

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5 Venture-Agent

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Philippe Lam wrote:
Burden of proof is on the one alleging allowing unlimited replays won't hurt, not on those who say that will cause problems, because there are already proofs of the latter. Thinking to have a right cause doesn't make it a right cause.

There are alleged proofs of the latter and there are alleged proofs of the former, the alleged proofs of the latter is LFR, the alleged proof of the former is adventures league.

Thing is, the people alleging that unlimited replay hurts are completely ignoring adventures league, wonder why that is.

I'm sorry that someone finally calling out the same 5-6 person in group has ruffled so many feathers.

3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Imagine thinking LFR died because of replays, not because 4th ed sucked and WotC announced they were making fifth edition.

Fifth ed was announced in January 2012 and released in 2014, but LFR went all the way to Dec 2014. . Yep, was definitely the replays, not the New edition that killed it.

The Exchange 5/5

Nathanael Love wrote:

Imagine thinking LFR died because of replays, not because 4th ed sucked and WotC announced they were making fifth edition.

Fifth ed was announced in January 2012 and released in 2014, but LFR went all the way to Dec 2014. . Yep, was definitely the replays, not the New edition that killed it.

Hmmm.... Well, I guess someone needs to tell Drogon that all his posts back in 2013 thru 2015 need to be revised to correct his opinion on why LFR failed in his stores. Clearly it had nothing to do with the Replay rules, as he stated back then.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2q8rd&page=4?The-Future-of-Level-15-Scenari os#155

From that thread -
Drogon - "I, myself, play PFS specifically because of replayers in LFR. I was GMing one particular scenario that I was very excited to run because it had several RP opportunities that many LFR modules lacked. When we got to the first one, a player literally walked away from the table with this comment: "He doesn't have any real information. When you move on, let me know." When we hit the second RP point, he held up his hand and said, "Look, man, five of the six of us have already played this. We know what the story is, so you don't have to bother telling it. Just run the fights so we can finish this up. I'm after the kip-up boots on the AR."

I never GM'd for LFR again. Worse, I watched as player after player who thought the way I do walked away from the system. Ultimately, no one ELSE ever played LFR, either. And please don't point at 4E as the "real" culprit for that. LFR died long before 4E sales ever did."

But then what does he know? He only has the sales info for two of the larger stores in Colorado...

Grand Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic

Nathanael Love wrote:

Imagine thinking LFR died because of replays, not because 4th ed sucked and WotC announced they were making fifth edition.

Fifth ed was announced in January 2012 and released in 2014, but LFR went all the way to Dec 2014. . Yep, was definitely the replays, not the New edition that killed it.

Well, for lots of venues LFR died much, much earlier.

Replay was a very big factor in many of those venues.

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5 Venture-Agent

nosig wrote:


The signed statement by 20 gamers to the effect that they will leave any campaign that has Replay rules like LA? I mean, if they will quit it would stand to reason that it will reduce the number of people playing - and so move it closer to "Dead". We can easily get 20 gamers who quit LFR BECAUSE of the Replay rules - but clearly... "not convincing - they don't count".

Sure but then we'd also have to ignore the creators of all these replay threads you've posted in that want replay or all the anecdotes of people who have lost players because they tried to show up to play only to find out they couldn't play what was being played that day, it's easy to show your side is right when you ignore any evidence to the contrary.

nosig wrote:
about Store owners? We can likely get Drogon out here to post a few lines if someone will point him our way. Last I heard he owned/managed two stores in Colorado (Denver I think). We can get him to post his numbers for attendance and sales again, but I'm guessing you'll not take his word for it - after all, it's just his livelihood we're talking about. If the Campaign folds, he looses sales.

I can give multiple examples in my area, which have more active AL than PFS. I'm sure this is true in other areas but again you don't want to hear counterexample.

nosig wrote:


And Past Performance has been excluded - as the only other campaign you seem to want to include is AL. All others don't count as they didn't allow Replay (except for LFR, which doesn't count because... ah... reasons?).

How can we show the alleged damage of replay by citing examples of campaigns without replay. I'm honestly not sure the point of this part because the whole argument I've been refuting this whole time is that replay kills campaigns, what probative value would citing to campaigns without replay serve.

nosig wrote:


So I'm not sure what would alter your opinion - and I've carefully read thru your posts and found them somewhat lacking in points that I agree with. Mostly they seem to boil down to - "I Know what I know and I know it!". But perhaps I am biased. Those times I have seen Replay used in...

This is weird because "I know it" is what I've been rallying against this whole time. Namely that "past campaign was killed by replay" without actual supporting evidence that that is what killed the previous campaign and with current evidence that replay is not killing a current widely successful campaign.

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5 Venture-Agent

nosig wrote:
Hmmm.... Well, I guess someone needs to tell Drogon that all his posts back in 2013 thru 2015 need to be revised to correct his opinion on why LFR failed in his stores. Clearly it had nothing to do with the Replay rules, as he stated back then.

I would be interested in knowing how AL is doing in his venues, is it thriving is it dying, did it never start. That would be probative.

The Exchange 5/5

Shaudius wrote:
nosig wrote:


The signed statement by 20 gamers to the effect that they will leave any campaign that has Replay rules like LA? I mean, if they will quit it would stand to reason that it will reduce the number of people playing - and so move it closer to "Dead". We can easily get 20 gamers who quit LFR BECAUSE of the Replay rules - but clearly... "not convincing - they don't count".

Sure but then we'd also have to ignore the creators of all these replay threads you've posted in that want replay or all the anecdotes of people who have lost players because they tried to show up to play only to find out they couldn't play what was being played that day, it's easy to show your side is right when you ignore any evidence to the contrary.

nosig wrote:
about Store owners? We can likely get Drogon out here to post a few lines if someone will point him our way. Last I heard he owned/managed two stores in Colorado (Denver I think). We can get him to post his numbers for attendance and sales again, but I'm guessing you'll not take his word for it - after all, it's just his livelihood we're talking about. If the Campaign folds, he looses sales.

I can give multiple examples in my area, which have more active AL than PFS. I'm sure this is true in other areas but again you don't want to hear counterexample.

nosig wrote:


And Past Performance has been excluded - as the only other campaign you seem to want to include is AL. All others don't count as they didn't allow Replay (except for LFR, which doesn't count because... ah... reasons?).

How can we show the alleged damage of replay by citing examples of campaigns without replay. I'm honestly not sure the point of this part because the whole argument I've been refuting this whole time is that replay kills campaigns, what probative value would citing to campaigns without replay serve.

nosig wrote:


So I'm not sure what would alter your opinion - and I've carefully read thru your posts and found them somewhat lacking in
...

What would change your opinion (at this point I am not really interested in doing so, just curious as to what might change it)?

Older threads asking for Replay in PFS were normally motivated by people who had trouble organizing games, very seldom by people actually PLAYING the games. In fact, most of us playing were very happy with the way things were run...

I myself game in a region where most of the games are what other regions would call Pick-Up games. We sign up in Open Library and go thru the Geek Saduko of trying to figure out what each of us can play. Really - it works for us. It's an entirely different Can-O-Worms and I don't want to derail this thread for that...

Back to what this thread was for...

What are we going to do for Replay in 1E after 2E starts up and new content is not being produced? The Two suggestions I have seen so far on this that I like are:

1) "Silly Idea" - reissue the older scenarios as new numbers 00-01 becomes 10-01 and so on.

2) "Bob's suggestion" - Regional Semi-Exclusive Scenarios that are produced for/by and vetted by our VOs (or Authors submit them to Regional Officers who vet them). Released for a short time (say 6 months) exclusive to some Region they then are OKed and released to General Consumption by the entire campaign. If there were say 6 regions (perhaps one even Online?) - we could expect 12 or 24 scenarios a year.

Anyway - if we open it to Full Replay, I guess I'll just move on to some other part of the hobby... perhaps Home Games? Or I'll look for some other 3rd party vender to take Piazo's place and move on to their Campaign. I'm sure I'll have lots of company.

The Exchange 5/5

Shaudius wrote:
nosig wrote:
Hmmm.... Well, I guess someone needs to tell Drogon that all his posts back in 2013 thru 2015 need to be revised to correct his opinion on why LFR failed in his stores. Clearly it had nothing to do with the Replay rules, as he stated back then.

I would be interested in knowing how AL is doing in his venues, is it thriving is it dying, did it never start. That would be probative.

So send him a PM...

http://paizo.com/people/Drogon

***** Drogon Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Or, heck, call him and ask him about replay...

http://www.enchantedgrounds.com/

If he's changed his mind on Replay, you'd get me to listen more to your opinion...

Or just get him to post here.

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5 Venture-Agent

nosig wrote:


***** Drogon Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Or, heck, call him and ask him about replay...

http://www.enchantedgrounds.com/

If he's changed his mind on Replay, you'd get me to listen more to your opinion...

Or just get him to post here.

I just looked at their schedule, I see two 2-hour sessions of D&D Encounters (Adventurer's League) and 2 slots of 2 tables of AL every other Saturday. For PFS I see three tables every other Tuesday and 2 slots of 3 tables one Saturday a month.

So whatever apparently seems to have killed LFR doesn't seem to have killed AL which is running around the same amount of games as PFS. Since both campaigns have the same replay rules, what are we to conclude here?

As to what would change my mind? Actual arguments against replay, not vague (and finally actually specific) examples of how it "killed a previous campaign" which is empirically denied by the popularity of a current campaign.

nosig wrote:


Anyway - if we open it to Full Replay, I guess I'll just move on to some other part of the hobby... perhaps Home Games? Or I'll look for some other 3rd party vender to take Piazo's place and move on to their Campaign. I'm sure I'll have lots of company.

Maybe, but I would imagine it would be because people want to continue playing 3.5 analogues(in this case PF 1st edition) and not because of any issues with replay. There's a reason that PFS was popular and LFR wasn't popular but AL is popular and since replay was constant between LFR and AL, it appears to have nothing to do with replay.

The Exchange 5/5

So, you aren't going to contact Drogon? I figured you'd go for the chance to change my opinion...

Ah well... to each their own then...

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5 Venture-Agent

nosig wrote:

So, you aren't going to contact Drogon? I figured you'd go for the chance to change my opinion...

Ah well... to each their own then...

Showing you that their store has gobs of AL isn't enough for you? I can contact them, but I'm not sure what about what I've provided isn't sufficient. I can see from their post history they don't like replay that doesn't mean that it kills campaigns and it hasn't killed it at their store, it appears.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Without talking to Drogon, you might be missing a few things.

For a game to run at a store, all it needs is the store's permission. So it may be (I don't know, just speculating) Driving has nothing to do with it, and just allows those who do to use tables at his store.

If he is running it, it would not surprise me if he did not allow replays. Again, speculation, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Without talking to him, you don't know the state of campaigns run at his store. Just being run tells you very little and does not indicate he's changed his mind on replay. Simply that AL runs there.

The Exchange 5/5

Shaudius wrote:
nosig wrote:

So, you aren't going to contact Drogon? I figured you'd go for the chance to change my opinion...

Ah well... to each their own then...

Showing you that their store has gobs of AL isn't enough for you? I can contact them, but I'm not sure what about what I've provided isn't sufficient. I can see from their post history they don't like replay that doesn't mean that it kills campaigns and it hasn't killed it at their store, it appears.

I'm sorry - two table twice a month (and I don't know how full they are) is not "gobs". I play PFS at a very young venue - in the middle of the week. (Tuesday nights). We have 2 full table each week - unless we spill into a third (or fourth?). We're only about three months old now and we have grown to 12 players (13 last Tuesday). And even more shocking for St. Louis, we have had people using Warhorn to sign up to play! (To insure they get a seat, and because many of the players are Newbies, so haven't learned the habit of just showing up expecting to be able to play something in a Pick-Up game).

I'm pretty sure that Enchanted Ground would list two tables even if they only had enough sign ups for one... they always list a High and Low Tier table (so beginners have a place to play).

No, if you were to get the merchant to say that his opinion of Replay campaigns has changed due to the showing of AL - that would go a long way to changing my opinion. I still wouldn't PLAY in a campaign that had it, but I would re-assess my opinion of what killed LFR. (Which I think was due in a large part to their Replay policy blocking new players from joining tables - keeping New Blood out). I could be wrong - but I don't think so.

Anyway - time for me to head to bed. Have a nice night all! And Happy Gaming!

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5 Venture-Agent

Tallow wrote:


For a game to run at a store, all it needs is the store's permission. So it may be (I don't know, just speculating) Driving has nothing to do with it, and just allows those who do to use tables at his store.

That's only sort of true for encounters, for encounters they have to be requested by the store, but it is possible (probable?) that the local AL people ask the store to request encounters.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Shaudius wrote:
Tallow wrote:


For a game to run at a store, all it needs is the store's permission. So it may be (I don't know, just speculating) Driving has nothing to do with it, and just allows those who do to use tables at his store.
That's only sort of true for encounters, for encounters they have to be requested by the store, but it is possible (probable?) that the local AL people ask the store to request encounters.

My point still stands. Without talking to him, we have no idea his personal involvement.

3/5

It doesn't really matter at this point, and as has been pointed out...the people who are for reply (in any additional way) aren't going to change their mind and the people who are against replay (of any kind or changing the existing rules) aren't going to change their mind.

Each person is going to be influenced by their region's experience, players, and availability. To be honest? This thread should just be closed at this point. Personally, I'm putting it on block/hide....it serves nothing any longer other than to rile people up.

2/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
shalandar wrote:
It doesn't really matter at this point, and as has been pointed out...the people who are for reply (in any additional way) aren't going to change their mind and the people who are against replay (of any kind or changing the existing rules) aren't going to change their mind.

Two things:

1) Please don't reduce this to a binary choice - for or against replay ("of any kind"). Personally, I'm against unlimited replay and like the current PFS system of limited replay largely based on GM stars, and I would like to see a slightly expanded, but still not at all unlimited, replay system for PFS1 during the some limited time period after PFS2 begins.

2) This thread is specifically for discussing "first edition replay when second launches." In posts here, can we try and keep the discussion on this topic and move broader discussions of replay and/or possible replay schemes for PFS2 to a different thread.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, France—Paris

shalandar wrote:

It doesn't really matter at this point, and as has been pointed out...the people who are for reply (in any additional way) aren't going to change their mind and the people who are against replay (of any kind or changing the existing rules) aren't going to change their mind.

Each person is going to be influenced by their region's experience, players, and availability. To be honest? This thread should just be closed at this point. Personally, I'm putting it on block/hide....it serves nothing any longer other than to rile people up.

That's pretty much the point. I respect the opposite point of view despite disagreeing strongly, some have valid reasons and are moderate in their requests. But unluckily, others are intently spoiling it with unrealistic wishlists.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Philippe Lam wrote:
shalandar wrote:

It doesn't really matter at this point, and as has been pointed out...the people who are for reply (in any additional way) aren't going to change their mind and the people who are against replay (of any kind or changing the existing rules) aren't going to change their mind.

Each person is going to be influenced by their region's experience, players, and availability. To be honest? This thread should just be closed at this point. Personally, I'm putting it on block/hide....it serves nothing any longer other than to rile people up.

That's pretty much the point. I respect the opposite point of view despite disagreeing strongly, some have valid reasons and are moderate in their requests. But unluckily, others are intently spoiling it with unrealistic wishlists.

And some are blatantly insulting people who disagree with them by trying to discredit their motives and their existence as a person instead of what they are posting.

Granted, most of what I'm saying is anecdotal, but that doesn't make anything I say any less valid than someone else who also has differing anecdotal evidence.

4/5 ** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Southcoast

3 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:

From that thread -

Drogon - "I, myself, play PFS specifically because of replayers in LFR. I was GMing one particular scenario that I was very excited to run because it had several RP opportunities that many LFR modules lacked. When we got to the first one, a player literally walked away from the table with this comment: "He doesn't have any real information. When you move on, let me know." When we hit the second RP point, he held up his hand and said, "Look, man, five of the six of us have already played this. We know what the story is, so you don't have to bother telling it. Just run the fights so we can finish this up. I'm after the kip-up boots on the AR."

I think we can all agree that, replay or not, this is still a table of less-then-cooperative players, and this type of behavior really shouldn't be fostered or tolerated in PFS. Even if we currently had Unlimited Replay in PFS, I wouldn't GM the same 20-30 tables all the time so characters can constantly farm out the boons and items they want across all of their characters. I wouldn't let a group of 4-6 players ruin the experience for the rest of the player base in our area. If they want to do that, they're more than welcome to GM the tables for that themselves.

pjrogers wrote:

1) Please don't reduce this to a binary choice - for or against replay ("of any kind"). Personally, I'm against unlimited replay and like the current PFS system of limited replay largely based on GM stars, and I would like to see a slightly expanded, but still not at all unlimited, replay system for PFS1 during the some limited time period after PFS2 begins.

2) This thread is specifically for discussing "first edition replay when second launches." In posts here, can we try and keep the discussion on this topic and move broader discussions of replay and/or possible replay schemes for PFS2 to a different thread.

I 100% agree with pjrogers on point #1, and this seems like a regular habit on these forums. In the PFS2 thread about boons, I mentioned just simply trying to bridge the (what I perceive as a sizeable) gap on special (i.e. race) boon rewards between GMs and players a bit, and suddenly my argument was reduced to me wanting to hand race boons out like candy or never ever rewarding GMs for anything. For the 4-7 people involved in the current iteration on replay arguments, the conversation is being steered towards "unlimited reply or no replay", while there's 20-25 (possibly more) of the rest of us standing in the middle asking why we can't just meet up in here somewhere. Just going through the first two pages of posts, there's a lot of support for every other option (2, 3, and 5). And while a lot of people have been calling Unlimited Replay a "dealbreaker", there are also very few people who support it, and about the same low number of people who support No Further Replay over any of the other options.

A majority of people support some level of expanded replay that isn't Unlimited Replay, but in the past 2 and a half days, all the talk is the "all or nothing" model. And, as strongly as Shadius' makes his case, they're still the first person to stand up and put up arguments supporting Unlimited Replay. And credit to them for doing so, but I think in this back-and-forth over "All or nothing", a lot of the other REALLY GOOD ideas are getting drowned out.

The Exchange 5/5

Tash Thon wrote:
nosig wrote:
So, you aren't going to contact Drogon?

Yet another fictitious distraction. You are just trolling these forums. My fault for accidentally thinking you and Tallow were serious earlier.

So, to all the honest posters in this thread, I can't remember if these were my ideas or just ones I liked. Your opinions.

1) Season-locked afterplay. Any character started after the transition has access to two (three?) adjacent seasons chosen at level 1. This would overrule evergreens.

2) Open replay with account unlocks. Instead of equipment, class options, and other major resources being restricted to characters that earn them, make them all treated as approved Additional Resources for the player. This is to deal with "chronicle fishing" which seems to be the only mechanical reason yet suggested against open replay.

3) Open replay with some edits. Allegedly, season 4 has some overpowered rewards. Which means I have been playing the wrong season 4 scenarios. If there actually is anything worth complaining about, re-write the chronicle sheets for those scenarios.

4) Completely arbitrary chronicle sheets. No more special rewards. Just xp, gold, and prestige ticks. While this would detract a bit from the flavor of some rewards, I think I have used a whopping five chronicle awards so far. It also has the advantage that you could print up 20 or so new chronicle notes on a standard 8.5" x 11" sheet of paper. Much more druid friendly.

I'm not sure about Tallow - I mean I often don't agree with his opinion and even sometimes roll my eyes at some of his posts, but I don't think they are trolling. I know I am not. But feel free to ignore my posts if you wish.

Now for my opinions on your numbered suggestions...
#1) Season-locked afterplay. Any character started after the transition has access to two (three?) adjacent seasons chosen at level 1. This would overrule evergreens. I'm sorry, I do not understand the mechanics of what you are trying to describe. At you saying that a PC would "have access" to any scenario in two Seasons? So, say I start my -62 PC (named Dash 62) "after the trasition" (I assume this means after the release of 2nd Ed.) and his first game is 0-01 Silent Tide. Does that mean he can only play in scenarios from season zero and one? Any Scenario? Am I restricted from playing any of my other PCs in those seasons? I do not like this restriction as it would prevent me from playing many "linked" scenarios such as those that feature the Blakros Museum or the "Among the..." series. I guess special exceptions could be made for connected scenarios, but at that point the rules/bookkeeping gets to be to much for me.

#2) Open replay with account unlocks. Instead of equipment, class options, and other major resources being restricted to characters that earn them, make them all treated as approved Additional Resources for the player. This is to deal with "chronicle fishing" which seems to be the only mechanical reason yet suggested against open replay. Ah, how is this "replay"? It looks like some type of modification to the Access rules for CRs? Kind of like those that appear on some Chronicles now that say "this allows you to take XXX on any of your PCs". Wait, now I see. You start with "Open Replay" - so this would be unrestricted replay then? sorry. No. Not an option I would support. Which is odd, as I actually have very little objection to "chronicle fishing" but I do strongly object to replays - "seems to be the only mechanical reason yet suggested against open replay"... nope. But clearly you do not except any other objections as valid.

#3 Open replay with some edits. Allegedly, season 4 has some overpowered rewards. Which means I have been playing the wrong season 4 scenarios. If there actually is anything worth complaining about, re-write the chronicle sheets for those scenarios. I actually don't know what you are talking about here. I do not know of any reason why season 4 replays would be more objectionable then any other season... if it were, then I would suggest just not opening that season to replay. In fact, in my suggestion for expanding replays Season 4 scenarios would become available again as Season 14. If we are going to do "some edits" - then just re-issue the scenarios after they have been edited, and re-issue them as new numbers/new scenarios.

#4 Completely arbitrary chronicle sheets. No more special rewards. Just xp, gold, and prestige ticks. While this would detract a bit from the flavor of some rewards, I think I have used a whopping five chronicle awards so far. It also has the advantage that you could print up 20 or so new chronicle notes on a standard 8.5" x 11" sheet of paper. Much more druid friendly. I have no idea what this is trying to address. So... how would this work? a player would show up for a game and all that they would need to know would be the Sub-tier they are playing at? Judge: "We're playing in Sub-Tier 3-4, what PCs do you have that can play that?" Player: "My Paladin" - Judge: "Ok, your briefing today will be from Andril Muttonchops himself 'Good morning Pathfinders...'"... and there is no concern if you have played it before then? and basically no tracking? Or what? Sorry - again I do not see what this is fixing in the problems with Replay. I am assuming you would link this to "Open Replay" then? Perhaps giving out this "Completely arbitrary chronicle sheet" only if the player has played the scenario before. So... I could be sitting at a table with 5 players who had played this same scenario every day for the last 3 days of the CON, twice a day - and they just finished their last run in the timeslot just before this? No thanks. I do not want to be caught in someone else's Ground Hog Day.

So it appears that all 4 of these suggestions start from the position of "Full Open Replay" - a position I do not support. Sorry.

Just to double check, this is was only to be used in PFS1, and not suggested to be added to PFS2?

Alternately I offer the two suggestions that I like for comments -

1) "Silly Idea" - reissue the older scenarios as new numbers 00-01 becomes 10-01 and so on. Do this on the same "Release Schedule" we currently use, presenting 2 or 3 scenarios a month that are Re-Released as new numbers and thus open for Sorta-Replay (once each).

2) "Bob's suggestion" - Regional Semi-Exclusive Scenarios that are produced for/by and vetted by our VOs (or Authors submit them to Regional Officers who vet them). Released for a short time (say 6 months) exclusive to some Region they then are OKed and released to General Consumption by the entire campaign. If there were say 6 regions (perhaps one even Online?) - we could expect 12 or 24 scenarios a year. (each region would be responsible for producing one scenario every 3 or 6 months).

The Exchange 5/5

A funny point with suggestion #2, I think this would even convince me to try Online play - just to get access to the Time Limited offer of a scenario offered first online...

The Exchange 1/5 5/55/55/55/5 Venture-Agent

Tallow wrote:


And some are blatantly insulting people who disagree with them by trying to discredit their motives and their existence as a person instead of what they are posting.

Granted, most of what I'm saying is anecdotal, but that doesn't make anything I say any less valid than someone else who also has differing anecdotal evidence.

It took multiple posts to get anything out of anyone other than vague references to "replay killed other campaigns."

I'm not asking anyone to support my position, nor am I even saying unlimited replay is the right option, what I am trying to do is to get people to stop using specious boogeyman arguments without facts to back them up, which it took at least a dozen posts to have happen and doesn't appear to have really happened in 6+ years of these threads.

Tallow wrote:
My point still stands. Without talking to him, we have no idea his personal involvement.

We shouldn't have to take your word for his experience, hearsay does not have value here and since we don't know the exact circumstances both then and now, whether or not replay was the exact reason for the demise of LFR in his particular area is not know, it seems to be empericially denied by the successful of AL in other regions and it's a bad basis for an argument, you aren't even arguing unlimited replay killed LFR for you, you're arguing that it did for someone else who you are taking the word of. Do you not see the problem with this line of argument? Your anecdote isn't even your anecdote nor is it complete but you've spread it as gospel for half a decade and acting like it's incontrovertible truth. It's especially galling because this seems to be the unchallenged voice that op leadership has been listening too without actual proof.

Scarab Sages 5/5

Shaudius wrote:
Tallow wrote:


And some are blatantly insulting people who disagree with them by trying to discredit their motives and their existence as a person instead of what they are posting.

Granted, most of what I'm saying is anecdotal, but that doesn't make anything I say any less valid than someone else who also has differing anecdotal evidence.

It took multiple posts to get anything out of anyone other than vague references to "replay killed other campaigns."

I'm not asking anyone to support my position, nor am I even saying unlimited replay is the right option, what I am trying to do is to get people to stop using specious boogeyman arguments without facts to back them up, which it took at least a dozen posts to have happen and doesn't appear to have really happened in 6+ years of these threads.

Tallow wrote:
My point still stands. Without talking to him, we have no idea his personal involvement.
We shouldn't have to take your word for his experience, hearsay does not have value here and since we don't know the exact circumstances both then and now, whether or not replay was the exact reason for the demise of LFR in his particular area is not know, it seems to be empericially denied by the successful of AL in other regions and it's a bad basis for an argument, you aren't even arguing unlimited replay killed LFR for you, you're arguing that it did for someone else who you are taking the word of. Do you not see the problem with this line of argument? Your anecdote isn't even your anecdote nor is it complete but you've spread it as gospel for half a decade and acting like it's incontrovertible truth. It's especially galling because this seems to be the unchallenged voice that op leadership has been listening too without actual proof.

You keep saying we aren't arguing correct, and then presenting your opinion, anecdotal evidence and suppositions/speculations as facts. If you want first hand knowledge of what happened in Drogon's neighborhood, go read his accounts (which Nosig helpfully provided some of above). His accounts are not anecdotal, but empirical based on his financial data.

But then, what do I know... I'm just a guy who's had just as much if not more experience in organized play as you... so if my experiences and anecdotes aren't valid, then neither are yours.

251 to 300 of 734 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Playtest / First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches All Messageboards