First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches


Pathfinder Society Playtest

301 to 350 of 734 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Or more basically, his approach is detrimental to the cause he pretends to defend, but he clearly doesn't care.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shaudius wrote:
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.

The Exchange 5/5

Shaudius wrote:

...snipping first second...

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.

(bolding mine)... wow...

Ok, Yeah, Replay killed LFR for me personally. - but then yeah, I'm only one gamer, who over the last 40+ years has been very active in getting other people active in our hobby. damn - 42 years? crud, now I'm feeling old again. It get's a little depressing when my table judge and the author of the scenario I'm playing points out that his father was two the year I started playing RPGs).

I am willing to take Drogon at his word and will except his posts about what formed his opinion on the demise of LFR (after all, it matches all the other evidence I have experienced/seen)... especially because he is a major force in our hobby in the Mountain region (A merchant/owner for two large venues who is also a gamer in our hobby). So when he makes a statement, I'll pay attention. Which is why I said you should contact him and if you could get him to change his opinion I would give your points more weight. Until then I am going to go with my experience/opinion...

so... you're right, "We shouldn't have to take your word for his experience, hearsay does not have value here ...", that's why I advised you to contact him either by PM, or by calling his place of business and talking to him. that way you don't "have to take your word for his experience, hearsay does not have value here ...".

so, again, contact him...

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.

I'm sure he'll give me an ear-full for trying to summon him like he's some minor deity of RPGs or something. Or quoting him like he's an authority figure. I actually do not remember ever meeting him in person, though I have gamed in Denver many times years ago, and likely even frequented his stores. So if he actually does pop in here I'm likely to just go into stealth mode and hide.

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

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:


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.

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

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.

The Exchange 5/5

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

THE OPTIONS THAT JOHN COMPTON LISTED IN THE BLOG:

The Inimitable John Compton wrote:

Option 1—No Further Replay: There are already some replay options out there, and everyone would be able to fill out a new Expanded Narrative boon (i.e. "recharge the GM stars' replay" boon) each year. However, there wouldn't be any additional allowances for replaying beyond what already exist.

Option 2—Favored Character: This model allows each participant to select one Pathfinder Society PC to ignore all replay restrictions. That could mean playing a new PC all the way from 1st level to 20th, or you could make an 8th-level PC your favored character in order to play through all of the Tier 7–11 and higher adventures. Whatever the case, everyone would be able to fulfill that limitless story with another PC.

Option 3—Heightened GM Star Recharge: In this model, the Expanded Narrative opportunity continues but has some capacity for more recharging than normal. That might mean someone could instantly begin a new Expanded Narrative Chronicle sheet the moment she fills out the first one, not waiting for a new season. It might instead mean that there's a limit of one sheet per season, but the sheet grants more than one replay for each GM star. There are likely other variations on this approach.

Option 4—Unlimited Replay: As noted above, we're unlikely to institute unlimited replay in First Edition, even after the new campaign launches. If that's something you'd want to see anyway, go ahead an say so, but please also convey what you'd want to see were unlimited replay not selected.

Of these options, I am most in favor of Options 3 and 5. Three is great because it encourages GMing during this transition period when everyone is trying to get more playtime in.

What is Option 5, you ask? I’m so glad you asked!

Option 5—Expanded Replay on All Tiers of Evergreens: Rather than open up replay globally, I’d like us to extend replay to all tiers of an evergreen, the way we currently have in SFS. So House of Harmonious Wisdom could be replayed on any tier from 1-5. Gallows of Madness could be replayed on any tier from 1-3. This will not only make it easier for folks to get their characters into higher levels, it would reduce bookkeeping for VOs and the player base.

Thank you for considering my post!

Hmm

refloating Hilary's post to the top of the pond. I like the way she framed this... and I'll Vote with her.

Of the 5 options she lists, I'll take #3 and #5...

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

Tallow wrote:
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.

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

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

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.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shaudius wrote:
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?

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

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:


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.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

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.

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

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
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.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Edit: Even as exaggeration, that comment was erroneous, looking back on previous threads. Mea culpa.

The Exchange 5/5

James Anderson wrote:

Huh... here's an idea. As soon as 1st ed 'dies' at gencon 2019, reset all scenarios. Every scenario becomes as if you hadn't touched it before. You can once again play and GM it. Your characters keep what they've already got.

This reopens the entire catalog for a second pass through - about 600 games. But at the same time, it offers the same limits on replays and boon fishing that we have now.

Ok, if we HAVE to have replay, I could get behind this proposal by James Anderson. Perhaps with some way to stagger the roll-out over time maybe? say reset some of the scenarios perhaps the first two seasons? and then do it again at PiazoCon 2019, then again for the next two at Gencon 2020 etc. That would release four times as many scenarios for replay as we currently get for play each year - two seasons worth for one Replay each release very 6 months or so.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shaudius wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:


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.

The Exchange 5/5

shalandar wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Why is replay for no credit not enough to make tables happen?

I can list a reason, "While I have fun playing pathfinder, if I am going to get nothing out of my 4-5 hours sitting there other than the enjoyment of it....then I'll go do something else."

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy playing pathfinder...however, if it was "Play and get nothing for your time" or "Go and play another game or home and play on the x-box" why wouldn't I choose the second?

I'm re-reading the older posts on this thread and commenting on those that catch my eye. This one sort of jumped out at me.

... if it was "Play and get nothing for your time" or "Go and play another game or home and play on the x-box" why wouldn't I choose the second? ... wow...

I originally played Pathfinder before there was PFS. In a home game (an AP actually). It was great! I still have very fond memories from those games.

I guess "playing for nothing" and "Go and play another game" would rate about equal to me - but both would be much in advance of "go home and play on the x-box". By myself? ah... well, there are times that I do like to play a video game alone, and times I'll grab a book and just read the afternoon away - but sometimes I like to gather around a table with my friends (or even with strangers) and roll some dice, play some game and have some FUN. Is this "playing for nothing"? ah... Clearly it's not for "nothing"! 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...).

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

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.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Baldwin wrote:
Shaudius wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:


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...

thank you for taking the time to respond with your input. And thank you for wading thru the swamp of other posts (many of them mine) to get here.

thanks to your post I think I learned some new things and I like to think I have expanded my view some too.

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

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

The Exchange 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
nosig wrote:
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.

wow... my first was running (at home) #33: Assault on the Kingdom of the Impossible (Feb 26, 2011) for my Home Game crew...

We were already playing an AP, but we started "testing the waters" for PFS.

My first game as a PLAYER was #5: Mists of Mwangi Mar 12, 2011

so you've got a some years of PFS on me... I don't think it was even PFS back then...

I salute you sir! (we have to treat our elder with respect you know... lol!)

The Exchange 5/5

TOZ wrote:
MrBear wrote:
And this impacts you enough to argue against post retirement replays because...?
I appreciate it's a very personal situation. Please don't think I'm blindly attached to an opposing position. But EVERY loosening of replay restrictions is just used as more evidence of 'nothing bad has happened, we can go further!' and I have no doubt that people will take 1e as an example to argue for 2e to open up more replay. I'm going to be playing 1e, don't worry. I'm not just some outsider saying you can't replay because I got mine.

drat! I don't often agree with TOZ.... but I'm in agreement with his post here.

I need to go be scanned for Enchantment magic again... Somebody has been casting charms on me or something...

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Just wanted to add that the diminishing support from WotC for the invested players coincided with the last economic recession. Take that for whatever it is worth.

Scarab Sages 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Australia—NSW—Sydney aka sanwah68

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

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

Shaudius wrote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


2 people 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.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope that my previous response to you was not seen as hostile.

Scarab Sages 5/5

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

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Coming up with labels for the other side is needlessly hostile, yes.

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

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

One extreme fuels the other. As nobody will attempt to stop, it's bound to explode.

2/5

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

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?

Scarab Sages 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Australia—NSW—Sydney aka sanwah68

pjrogers wrote:

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.

4/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Southcoast aka JDDyslexia

pjrogers wrote:

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.

2/5

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sandra Wilkinson wrote:

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.

Joe Bouchard wrote:
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.

Scarab Sages 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Australia—NSW—Sydney aka sanwah68

To clarify...the suggested Big Bang method mentioned somewhere in this thread was to have a reset, allowing for one player and one GM replay of each scenario

2/5

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Sandra Wilkinson wrote:
To clarify...the suggested Big Bang method mentioned somewhere in this thread was to have a reset, allowing for one player and one GM replay of each scenario

I would be totally groovy with this.

Scarab Sages 5/5

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.

The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Sandra Wilkinson wrote:
To clarify...the suggested Big Bang method mentioned somewhere in this thread was to have a reset, allowing for one player and one GM replay of each scenario

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. So, if a player has joined PFS the week before the Reset, and played 4 scenarios between then and the actual Reset time (say Midnight Saturday GenCon 2019), they would be able to Replay those same 4 scenarios - but no others. Is this what we intend? It likely would drive more games leading up to the "Reset" date as people rush to get in a play of the Scenarios before they get Opened again. No, amend that. It is SURE to drive a rush to get games in before the "deadline" - at least some of which will be "speed-played" just to get the "pre-Rest" CR.

It would also give a BIG flood of available games to play - different from what we have now in a few ways. Pre-Reset a Con Coordinator kind of knows what will be in high demand in his area. The "new stuff". Heck, on the run up to a major local CON, the people who schedule events at the local venues tend to NOT run the most recent releases, to save them for a "Premier" at the CON. With the Reset, this no longer works. Everyone now has Everything available, fresh slate. But in a year, we'll start to find that the Geek Sudoku of finding something everyone can play is going to be harder and harder. Currently, when several "Old Hands" sit down together we can predict that most of them have played the older Scenarios. "Yeah, I've done everything before season 7 except 4-02 and 5-09" will sometimes get the response "Hay! I can play 4-02 also! If Bob can run it...". With some type of Staggered Release we'll have something more like we have now, with 2-4 scenarios added each month.

Not to say the harder Geek Sudoku would be bad! It actually might be a good thing, making it more likely to push people over to PFS2e faster just to get something everyone can play... you know, the scenarios released this month.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:

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.

I 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. Is it better than the "old game", the "old campaign"? No? so why am I going to this new game? Because TPTB forced me to? HA! not likely. Push me to do something and I'll get mule-ish and dig my heels in and never move. Or do something else out of spite. And I don't think I'm alone in that.

The new game is going to have the appeal of "New" - the same thing that got a bunch of players to jump over and try out SFS. And that was while PFS was still producing "New" content. Once PFS1e starts onto "replay", there will be a lot of encouragement to "try the modern version".

After all - I think I still have a lot of my old 1st Ed. D&D scenarios... but I never seem to get anyone to play them... Even the guys I know played them years ago...

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
nosig wrote:
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).

nosig wrote:

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.

Scarab Sages 5/5

pjrogers wrote:


nosig wrote:

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 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.

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

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.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I keep getting flash backs to April 23, 1985... which is what? Over 30 years ago now? And why do I flash back to that specific date you ask?

new product launch date:
On Thursday, April 23, 1985, the Coca-Cola Company announced a change to its nearly century-old secret formula. Here's hoping we don't have the "New Coke" of RPGs. If we do, I hope we can pull a "Classic" out of the ashes of the Campaign.

Scarab Sages 5/5

without an "all-in" commitment, Then PF2 and PFS2 will certainly fail.

The Exchange 5/5

Tallow wrote:
pjrogers wrote:


nosig wrote:

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 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.

"... 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?" ah... yes? Perhaps not the EXACT SAME individuals, doing the exact same things, but there will be a VO team. (maybe even one branch for PFS1 and another for PFS2).

The Volunteer Network of Venture Officers will expand as/when the player base expands. As it has in the past. Will it be painless? Not likely. Will they (the VOs) be just as overworked, toiling away behind the scenes in the same totally thankless, stressful job that they are stuck doing now? Yeah, I think so. And as the players (the customer base) expands, the number of Volunteers needed (and available) will also increase. In any group of gamers there will be ABOUT the same percentage of persons who are willing to put forth the effort needed to run the campaign/games/events (there must be a masochistic streak in us that pushes us into this). I believe this. Lord help me, sometimes I even bolt on the armor and ride off to that "battle" myself - and volunteer my time/sweat/tears/hair to organizing and running events/cons/gamedays/campaigns. Done it before when it was needed, and there's just enough of the "old soldier" left in me that I might do it again - if I see the need.

(IMHO) We just need to be sure that whatever we do, whatever changes we put in place to extend PFS1e past the start of PFS2e requires a minimum of effort from Paizo. So that it doesn't impact the production of new product, or the sale of old (1st edition) products.

2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

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."

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pjrogers wrote:

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."

thank you pjrogers - this is something we should keep in mind,

"The Powers That Be" are watching us.

301 to 350 of 734 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Playtest / First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches All Messageboards