|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's especially galling because this seems to be the unchallenged voice that op leadership has been listening too without actual proof.
Or it is literally the experience of the campaign leadership so far. Most of the original campaign staff moved over from LG to start PFS and brought their lessons from there. I believe John was also a part of that crew, but I could be wrong.
|
Or it is literally the experience of the campaign leadership so far. Most of the original campaign staff moved over from LG to start PFS and brought their lessons from there. I believe John was also a part of that crew, but I could be wrong.
You mean the campaign that had zero replay, I'm not sure why you think that supports the supposition that "replay kills organized play campaigns" which is the cannard I've been arguing against with the same 5-6 people who have been making this same argument unchallenged for half a decade apparently based on the experience of one store owner.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't, I'm saying the campaign staff comes from a campaign that was successful without replay and sees no reason to change a winning formula.
Which is why I wish you luck in changing their mind, and hope that your attacking the reasoning of people you disagree with is a beneficial tactic instead of an off-putting one.
|
|
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.
I'm confused. Did replay kill LFR or did replay kill 4th edition because I'm not sure what financial data you could be talking about with regard to LFR.
If the argument is that 4th edition wasn't popular and that sales declined over time demonstrated by financial data, that's not actually supportive of your argument it's supportive of mine, namely that the unpopularity of 4th edition killed LFR not it's replay rules.
|
|
I don't, I'm saying the campaign staff comes from a campaign that was successful without replay and sees no reason to change a winning formula.
Which is why I wish you luck in changing their mind, and hope that your attacking the reasoning of people you disagree with is a beneficial tactic instead of an off-putting one.
I'm not saying that no replay is the wrong position, the position I've been arguing against is that "replay kills organized play campaigns"
Beyond that, they've obviously changed their minds from this "winning formula" since PFS has more replay than LG ever had and you can now run a game before you play it (a situation that can lead to as much metagaming as replay can, although an argument can be made that we trust GMs more).
In short, I'm not saying that people shouldn't make arguments against replay, all I've been saying this whole time is that "replay kills organized play campaigns" isn't a valid argument and has been shown through a more robust record including AL to not be true.
As to nosig's point I have PM'd Drogon, well see if he replies or comes to this thread.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In short, I'm not saying that people shouldn't make arguments against replay, all I've been saying this whole time is that "replay kills organized play campaigns" isn't a valid argument and has been shown through a more robust record including AL to not be true.
And if that isn't the argument of the campaign staff, what exactly are you accomplishing?
|
|
And if that isn't the argument of the campaign staff, what exactly are you accomplishing?
Every replay thread I've seen has posited the "replay kills organized play campaigns" as objective fact, rarely, if ever, with supportive evidence, often as the sole reason why PFS has the replay scheme that it does.
Therefore, what I believe I'm accomplishing is challenging this assertion such that hopefully it's not an argument that keeps getting made and instead more rational arguments are instead made with support and logic instead of the echo chamber of the same people who are now arguing with me that has existed in these threads for years.
Basically people have been using this red herring for years to stiffle debate on the subject and I hope by exposing the argument for what it is, a fictitious one, we can actually have a real conversation about the merits of replay and the harm or help it causes.
I realize this will require me to be vigilant as the same people posting now are the same people that have been making this claim with little support for years.
|
|
I certainly haven't seen a reduction in the debate. It keeps coming back in spite of any argument to the contrary, no matter how grounded or not it is.
Best I can gather when it comes up it is an OP saying, "I went to my game store and couldn't play a game and wanted to, why can't we have unlimited replay?" Which is met by the same people saying "oh this thread again here's a link to the other threads" and "we don't have replay like that because it has historically killed other campaigns" which goes unchallenged and the thread dies. Very rarely have I seen actual argumentation on the relative merits as well as contemporary examples of what replay has caused or hasn't caused.
And also best I can tell but I'm happy to be wrong, none of these threads have mentioned the widely popular AL which has incredibly wide open replay.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if that isn't the argument of the campaign staff, what exactly are you accomplishing?Every replay thread I've seen has posited the "replay kills organized play campaigns" as objective fact, rarely, if ever, with supportive evidence, often as the sole reason why PFS has the replay scheme that it does.
Therefore, what I believe I'm accomplishing is challenging this assertion such that hopefully it's not an argument that keeps getting made and instead more rational arguments are instead made with support and logic instead of the echo chamber of the same people who are now arguing with me that has existed in these threads for years.
Basically people have been using this red herring for years to stiffle debate on the subject and I hope by exposing the argument for what it is, a fictitious one, we can actually have a real conversation about the merits of replay and the harm or help it causes.
I realize this will require me to be vigilant as the same people posting now are the same people that have been making this claim with little support for years.
I was both a Triad for Living Greyhawk and an Adventure Coordinator for Living Forgotten Realms. So I have some inside information about both.
Living Greyhawk was heavily focused on the invested player and did not really cater to the casual player. It also supported conventions over local gamedays. It allowed absolutely NO replays. You couldn’t even play it if you GM it first. This discourage metagaming but required a lot of dedication. From what I saw, it’s primary benefit to the campaign was that it encouraged GMing, as if you went to a Con and they weren’t offering anything you hadn’t played in a slot, you would be inclined to offer to GM for it.
Living Forgotten Realms did a flip flop on this. They focused heavily on the new and casual players and just assumed the invested players would engage even after WotC stopped giving them a return on their investment. They also focused more on gamedays than conventions. The only replay restriction was that you could not play the same mod twice with the same character. While it had the major advantage of you always new you could play something when you went to an event, I witnessed two major problems. The first was that some people just can’t avoid metagaming to the point of diminishing the experience for the rest of the players at the table. It’s not like they did it deliberately, but they didn’t try too hard to avoid it either. The second, and more concerning to me as an organized, was that, if people always had the option to play, they almost always took that over the option to GM. This led to serious GM shortages the meant the remaining GMs suffered from a lot of burn out. I saw an entire huge group (5+ tables every gameday) of LFR players in a major city implode overnight because their GM base was tired of no one else stepping up to GM.
After those 2 experiences, it became clear to me that, in order to have a maximally successful campaign, you need to cater to both the invested and casual player (which, unfortunately sometimes means you can only make one happy at a time). So when I went to PFS, I was happy to see they were trying to tread the middle ground.
As far as what killed LFR? Well, my personal take is that unlimited replays was a contributing factor but not the cause (it was more of a symptom). Originally, WotC was very supportive of the invested players, i.e. the GMs, the coordinators, the organizers and the dedicated fans. They sent out free minis to dedicated GMS and players; gave out limited boons to Con goers, sent free Con packets with lots of goodies, and paid their adventure writers. But after about 18 months they started withdrawing that support. Free minis became, free boons, and then nothing. Limited boons became unlimited (and thus were not longer a reward). Con support diminished. And they abruptly stopped paying adventure writers and asked them to volunteer.
Now was this all because of diminished sales? Possibly. But I cannot confirm that. Support amongst my local players was still high at this time, but they lost the support of the invested players, so it didn’t matter how many people wanted to play when no one wanted to GM or organize anymore.
As such, I am in favor or anything that incentivizes invested players, especially GMs. So either option 1 or 3, but NEVER option 4.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you, Bill, that is very thoughtful and helpful. I am curious if this same phenomenon is being experienced in AL. Since AL has a similar replay system to LFR has it persuvied in the face of unlimited replay or has the constant influx of CCC meant that there is less need to worry about people replaying since there is enough content for them to not need to.
Would PFS experience the same issues since there is con boon support and RSP for GMing incentivizing GMing even in the face of more expanded replay.
It's been my recent experience that it's been a lot harder to get players at conventions than GMs because of the boon rewards.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I mean, I get this handy sheet of paper saying I just spent 5 hours of my life playing a game that in 10 years... ah... might... remind me of what I was doing 10 years ago? (yeah, I just looked back at the first CR I have on my #1 PFS PC... wow... so long ago...).
Yep, got that too. My -1 playing 0-3 at DragonCon '08.
Venture-Captain, Australia—NSW—Greater West
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would just like to chime in to give a vote...I really like Nosig's "silly idea" of rebadging season one as 11 and so one replay as both GM and player over a 10 year period. And if people want the same in PFS2...fine, in 10 years
|
|
Thank you, Bill, that is very thoughtful and helpful. I am curious if this same phenomenon is being experienced in AL. Since AL has a similar replay system to LFR has it persuvied in the face of unlimited replay or has the constant influx of CCC meant that there is less need to worry about people replaying since there is enough content for them to not need to.
Locally, I can tell you that AL is not getting the same level of dedicated support that PFS gets. However, there are a lot of people who want to play AL (I attribute a lot of this influx in players to things like the very popular Critical Roll). AL manages to get GMs mostly only because people want to play 5E so badly some begrudgingly step up who never did before so that everyone gets to play.
Would PFS experience the same issues since there is con boon support and RSP for GMing incentivizing GMing even in the face of more expanded replay.
Putting limits on things allows PFS to offer rewards at little to no expense to them. This can mean limiting races, rules access, and can include replay. Also, I find the invested players are more likely to avoid the metagaming pitfalls of replay than the casual players. Thus, limiting replay not only allows Paizo to reward people with more replays but limits the negative aspects of the metagaming replaying can cause.
It's been my recent experience that it's been a lot harder to get players at conventions than GMs because of the boon rewards.
If we are talking PFS - if you offer players a limited boon and GMs a much better one, this shouldn't be a problem.
If we are talking AL - AL is much more appealing to the casual player than PFS. And casual players are much less likely to go to Cons, so I am not surprised.
|
|
My brief AL experience was horrific and I would not wish it on anyone. There were none of the campaign safeguards that are present in PFS, and I was abused, mistreated, and talked down to for most of two slots because I didn't do 'exactly this powergaming thing' to 'maximize numbers'.
Recently at a local convention, while we'd resolved our scenario and had our chronicles and ready to go home, two AL tables were in ARGUMENTS over loot distribution and the profanity was flying thick and furious.
In a different campaign (which will remain nameless so as not to cast fecal matter on something I volunteered to help for almost two decades) the slippery slope of replay was introduced, and the concerns about meta and also the 'deliberate trolling' of replay tables was painfully obvious (it'd be against PFS rules, but still).
I like the idea of S0/1 becoming S11, with the same current restrictions on play. It'd allow folks who have played to get one more crack at a scenario, while still getting use some of the newer stuff that's come along since.
I do not like the idea of Unlimited Replay, and in our area, GM opportunities are not as common as might be expected, so trying to link it to GM Stars (as exists currently) isn't a viable option to keep things moving and active, I don't think.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time I come here to try to post something, I'm finding the needlessly hostile responses from the League Of Replay Prevention make it so difficult to try to participate in this discussion that I instead just close the window. I would be sad to see the argument lost in the back of caving to bullying.
I pretty much said the same thing about some of the responses from the League of Unlimited Replay Advocates. There is grar on both sides of this discussion.
|
Venture-Captain, Australia—NSW—Greater West
|
I may be totally wrong, but I have a sense that most of the folks taking part in this thread would be supportive of one additional replay of PFS1 material AFTER PFS2 begins.
Am I out of my skull, or is that something about which there is some degree of agreement?
I agree. There are some on either end, but I think the majority think that could work. As I see it there are currently two good thoughts that have come put on that:
1. Rebadge seasons as season x+10 and treat them as a new season...the trickle method.
2. Rest all scenarios to be unplayed, using the current rules....the big bang method
Both achieve the same thing, but one allows for replay of everything after August 2019, and the other takes 10 years to allow for a replay of a season 10 scenario.
|
|
I may be totally wrong, but I have a sense that most of the folks taking part in this thread would be supportive of one additional replay of PFS1 material AFTER PFS2 begins.
Am I out of my skull, or is that something about which there is some degree of agreement?
I like this idea, though I'd suggest you may also have to open it up to one more GM as well to make sure there's GMs to support it. Or, each player gets one more replay OR GM.
|
|
2. Rest all scenarios to be unplayed, using the current rules....the big bang method
Both achieve the same thing, but one allows for replay of everything after August 2019, and the other takes 10 years to allow for a replay of a season 10 scenario.
The "big bang method" is my preference for the reason noted here. It would also seem to be the easiest to implement.
I like this idea, though I'd suggest you may also have to open it up to one more GM as well to make sure there's GMs to support it. Or, each player gets one more replay OR GM.
I'll be honest, I really hadn't thought about the GMing side. My initial preference would still be for ONE additional replay, either as a player or GM.
|
|
One concern I have, if you use the Big Bang method or the slowly transferring seasons into a "new" season for full playability, is that for PFS2 to fully succeed, PFS1 needs to die off. If you create 10 full seasons of play, then you might have another 10 years of playability for PFS1, which means that PFS2, even after a couple seasons of content, might not ever get off the ground.
I do not feel that creating such a paradigm will be good for the ongoing health of PFS2.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "Reset" method as proposed does have one side effect though. It means that if we have NOT played a Scenario before the Reset, we actually DON'T get a replay for that Scenario.
I'm obviously speaking only for myself here, but I see what is described above as a "reset" as actually granting of one additional PFS1 replay. This is why I prefer the term "transition." I'd like to see everyone get one additional transition replay that must be used during the period of August 2019 to July 2022 (to pick a somewhat arbitrary end date).
TI actually don't believe "... that for PFS2 to fully succeed, PFS1 needs to die off."
This is the belief/reasoning "that other company" had for killing off LG. It really upset a lot of their player/GM base. If people began to suspect that Paizo was trying to do something like that, it would not be a good thing.
Anyway, (IMHO) a new game system/campaign should succeed or fail on it's own merits.
I totally agree with this.
|
|
I totally agree with this.TI actually don't believe "... that for PFS2 to fully succeed, PFS1 needs to die off."
This is the belief/reasoning "that other company" had for killing off LG. It really upset a lot of their player/GM base. If people began to suspect that Paizo was trying to do something like that, it would not be a good thing.
Anyway, (IMHO) a new game system/campaign should succeed or fail on it's own merits.
I didn't say I fully believed it, I just said its a concern. If PFS1 doesn't die off within 2 to 3 years, and it continues to go as strong as it does now, do you think that the same VO team is going to be able to maintain a level of PFS2 to support 4 developers and an OPC?
A fledgling campaign that essentially is the true successor to the original campaign (I'm assuming it isn't going to reboot the entire storyline. While PFS2 may shift on to new and different storylines, I assume it will still have all the storied history from PFS1. And if PFS1 is taking player/GM/organizer bandwidth away from PFS2, to remain as healthy a campaign as it is currently, then PFS2 will likely not succeed, considering its the same volunteer force that's working both of them.
|
|
This was the danger I felt in my gut when they announced CORE, and then when they announced Starfinder, and then like a knife in the gut when they announced PF2.
It made me queasy at first, then slowly that feeling faded to a dull ache of concern that splitting the attention too much may ultimately lead to the downfall of all the organized play, which is definitely not a desired end as it's the best consistent play I've found, even with a few outliers.
I'm now at a numbed feeling of acceptance, and hoping for the best, fearing for the worst, and prepared for the variations of the scale in-between.
|
|
I seriously doubt there will be any official support for PFS1 from Paizo after GenCon 2019. From a business standpoint, they need to fully support their new product and not funnel anymore resources into the old one. It also doesn't behoove them to essentially be competing with themselves for two campaigns. They will want every PFS1 customer they can get to move on to PFS2, which means they will be at least quietly trying to discourage even grassroot attempts at continuing PFS1.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It should be noted that this thread exists because John Compton asked for comments on this very topic in a March 28th blog post where he wrote ...
"We're still in internal discussions about the right way forward for replay, balancing the health of communities, the desire to wrap up a few select characters' stories, and ways to transition toward the second edition. We're interested in hearing your take on what replay considerations would be best for the organized play campaigns and community at our First Edition Replay thread."