First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches


Pathfinder Society Playtest

351 to 400 of 734 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
without an "all-in" commitment, Then PF2 and PFS2 will certainly fail.

again, (IMHO) this is not true.

4th Ed. (and LFR) had an "all-in" commitment - and it failed.

Old D&D played for years after the creation of AD&D. This is not an "only game in town" hobby.

Anyone here actually play SFS? Yes? What do you think, can the two games SF and PF exist at the same time? An "all-in commitment" would imply that you can only do one - so which is it going to be?

Will PFS1e eventually die off? Yeah, I think so. I actually hope so. I hope it does because PFS2e is a BETTER campaign, being played with a BETTER product - with a better Game System. Not because it requires an "all-in commitment". Not because "it's my way or the highway"... and you know what? if PFS2e is the "4th Edition" of Pathfinder and PFS2e is the LFR of PF2e, then I would like the option to go back to the older one that worked. I don't want to "set fire to the house" on my way out. (On a side note, if it isn't PF2e that is a better system and takes over for PF1e - then in time we'll get PF3e, or something else that does. So yeah, eventually PF1e and PFS1e will die off. And become just another set of boxes in my basement...)

But that's just my opinion. and in the end, I only get one vote.

Currently I like PFS1e. I know it, and enjoy it. Show me something better, more fun, and I'll jump to the New Shiny Toy. I'm a little kid like that. And just like a little kid, push me and I'll resent it. Push hard enough, and I'll take my money and move to a different part of the hobby.

** Venture-Lieutenant

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I am for expanded or full replay and here is why:

I play OP to socialize with my friends for a few hours (I count like minded individuals as friends in this context). It is an easy method to find those individuals like a dating service for other gamers. For the most part I do not care what we play and if someone or everyone has already played it Ok that just changes the interaction a bit. So anything that makes it easier to make that happen is good in my book. I am fully aware, that what I get out of OP is not what others get out of OP and so what works for me does not work for others.

Now on to what I think Paizo should do.
I think Paizo should set up replay in such a way that PFS1 stays strong for another 2-3 years. I do not know what that is because I would have to see play numbers and patters to begin to make an educated guess. Ideally after the 2-3 year marker play drops off heavily. Why 2-3 years you ask? A mature campaign offers something different than a new one. For people who want lots of diversity and options I think it will take 2-3 years to get that source material out there for it. You are giving people time to move and allow PF2 to evolve into more things than what just the core will offer. PFS2 will also have some maturing storylines for those that are into that at the 2-3 year mark.

I think Wizards made a mistake making a hard cut for Living Greyhawk especially, but Living Forgotten Realms too. I think a slow transition versus an all or nothing move will work out better for Paizo.

Paizo Employee Organized Play Developer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
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.

Not in a creepy way or anything, but we're actively listening, and largely avoiding getting involved in these discussions at this point so that our preferences aren't unduly influencing the feedback you all are giving. I literally sat down with the OP team yesterday and went through a binder full of the feedback you all have been giving before discussing the feasibility and technical availability of a lot of the options that have been discussed, both those John included in the original blog post and those that have been proposed since.

There are a lot of needs and interests to balance here and we haven't made any final decisions yet, but the conversations you all are having and the ideas you are proposing are all being taken into consideration as we work on shaping the new campaign and the future of the current campaign.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:
Tallow wrote:
without an "all-in" commitment, Then PF2 and PFS2 will certainly fail.

again, (IMHO) this is not true.

4th Ed. (and LFR) had an "all-in" commitment - and it failed.

Not really a valid counter. A valid counter would have been, "4th Ed. (and LFR) didn't have an "all-in" commitment - and it succeeded.

Of course, that would only really be valid if the above statement were true, but it isn't.

The fact that 4E had an all-in-commitment and failed does not negate the possibility that an all-in-commitment is needed for success.

Quote:

Old D&D played for years after the creation of AD&D. This is not an "only game in town" hobby.

The AD&D was released in stages, with the Monster Manual being released in 1977, the Player's Handbook in 1978, & the Dungeon Master's Guide in 1979. You literally HAD to play both versions at the same time.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bill Baldwin wrote:
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.

The backbone of the paizo fanbase (people who organize and run games) are people who jumped ship from a role playing game who's name is synonymous with role playing because they didn't like the new game. Jumping from paizo if someone decides to paizo paizo and emerge as the new champions of the 3.x system is a definite possibility.

If supporting PFS1 risks doing that, then so does ticking off the PFS players by slamming the doors shut on the campaign as a marketing decision to deliberately kill the campaign (which in this case means not altering the replay rules when PF2 comes out- because that will kill the campaign)

If Paizo does that I'm going to be ticked and not even give PF2 a chance and I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment.

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:


The backbone of the paizo fanbase (people who organize and run games) are people who jumped ship from a role playing game who's name is synonymous with role playing because they didn't like the new game. Jumping from paizo if someone decides to paizo paizo and emerge as the new champions of the 3.x system is a definite possibility.

Sure, but Paizo exists in its current form not because of the fans who abandoned D&D and specifically 4th edition made it so but because WotC abandoned the developers. Namely the way that WotC structured the successor to the OGL wasn't conducive to support, along with WotC taking back the rights to publish Dungeons and Dragon.

I don't think it would be so easy for another group without people who have the same background as the early Paizo employees steeped in Organized Play to create anything with nearly as much penetration as PFS or AL has, and maybe that's fine, but its not as simple as people jumping ship to something else, at least as far as OP is concerned.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
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.

The backbone of the paizo fanbase (people who organize and run games) are people who jumped ship from a role playing game who's name is synonymous with role playing because they didn't like the new game. Jumping from paizo if someone decides to paizo paizo and emerge as the new champions of the 3.x system is a definite possibility.

If supporting PFS1 risks doing that, then so does ticking off the PFS players by slamming the doors shut on the campaign as a marketing decision to deliberately kill the campaign (which in this case means not altering the replay rules when PF2 comes out- because that will kill the campaign)

If Paizo does that I'm going to be ticked and not even give PF2 a chance and I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment.

I am assuming that any decision to alter the replay rules would occur prior to the end of GenCon 2019. I do not expect them to invest any addition resources beyond that date.

The Exchange 5/5

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


The backbone of the paizo fanbase (people who organize and run games) are people who jumped ship from a role playing game who's name is synonymous with role playing because they didn't like the new game. Jumping from paizo if someone decides to paizo paizo and emerge as the new champions of the 3.x system is a definite possibility.

Sure, but Paizo exists in its current form not because of the fans who abandoned D&D and specifically 4th edition made it so but because WotC abandoned the developers. Namely the way that WotC structured the successor to the OGL wasn't conducive to support, along with WotC taking back the rights to publish Dungeons and Dragon.

I don't think it would be so easy for another group without people who have the same background as the early Paizo employees steeped in Organized Play to create anything with nearly as much penetration as PFS or AL has, and maybe that's fine, but its not as simple as people jumping ship to something else, at least as far as OP is concerned.

Shaudius, you are causing me to agree with BNW - and I HATE doing that. I'm going to have to go take a shower now just to feel good about myself again, and get rid of the "wet wolf aroma" hanging around...

(IMHO) Paizo exists in its current form (at least partly) because of the fans/players/staff who left Organized Play (LG & the RPGA) and WotC. They strongly shaped what the organization that we have now in PFS. I do not think they would say they "abandoned D&D" - I believe they would say they "remained true to the game"... I remember seeing a poster about "Ed. 3.75"... "We're the One True Church of Organized Play".

Could another group do it again? Pull a Paizo on Paizo? I hope not. I don't think Paizo will repeat the same mistakes that WotC did. And I think that is the majority of why PFS is what it is today - it was created by the circumstances of the path WotC followed.

Heck, Paizo is watching us now. Which is more than WotC did back then...

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bill Baldwin wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Bill Baldwin wrote:
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.

The backbone of the paizo fanbase (people who organize and run games) are people who jumped ship from a role playing game who's name is synonymous with role playing because they didn't like the new game. Jumping from paizo if someone decides to paizo paizo and emerge as the new champions of the 3.x system is a definite possibility.

If supporting PFS1 risks doing that, then so does ticking off the PFS players by slamming the doors shut on the campaign as a marketing decision to deliberately kill the campaign (which in this case means not altering the replay rules when PF2 comes out- because that will kill the campaign)

If Paizo does that I'm going to be ticked and not even give PF2 a chance and I don't think I'm alone in that sentiment.

I am assuming that any decision to alter the replay rules would occur prior to the end of GenCon 2019. I do not expect them to invest any addition resources beyond that date.

And I am very much hoping that any changes to the existing replay rules will not be EFFECTIVE until after GenCon 2019. Hopefully for some given period of time after... (even if it is an hour.) And I realize that even while I am saying it, that there will be a major push to implement any expansions immediately - as soon as the decision is made, there will be a push to "give it to us NOW. Why do we have to wait?". But then I tend to be a bit of a pessimist lately. Not sure why...

The Exchange 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
nosig wrote:
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.

Not in a creepy way or anything, but we're actively listening, and largely avoiding getting involved in these discussions at this point so that our preferences aren't unduly influencing the feedback you all are giving. I literally sat down with the OP team yesterday and went through a binder full of the feedback you all have been giving before discussing the feasibility and technical availability of a lot of the options that have been discussed, both those John included in the original blog post and those that have been proposed since.

There are a lot of needs and interests to balance here and we haven't made any final decisions yet, but the conversations you all are having and the ideas you are proposing are all being taken into consideration as we work on shaping the new campaign and the future of the current campaign.

Oh, I didn't think it was in a "creepy way"! LOL! I actually find it kind of refreshing that the people in charge listen in and don't jump in to influence the discussion. That is a lot more likely to produce something that the PLAYERS enjoy, rather than something the DESIGNERS enjoy.

Pay attention to the customer base - very important. Nice to see you're actually doing it.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
nosig wrote:


Shaudius, you are causing me to agree with BNW - and I HATE doing that. I'm going to have to go take a shower now just to feel good about myself again, and get rid of the "wet wolf aroma" hanging around...

My nose is 10,000 times better than yours but you get to tell me what smells good. The universe is weird...

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/55/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

nosig wrote:
And I am very much hoping that any changes to the existing replay rules will not be EFFECTIVE until after GenCon 2019. Hopefully for some given period of time after... (even if it is an hour.) And I realize that even while I am saying it, that there will be a major push to implement any expansions immediately - as soon as the decision is made, there will be a push to "give it to us NOW. Why do we have to wait?". But then I tend to be a bit of a pessimist lately. Not sure why...

I agree with half of this. While I also don't want anything to take effect until after Gencon 2019, I don't think there will be a huge push to get it active before then. People are still getting 4 new games a month, that's hard to complain against.

In fact, I will be rather upset if the don't tell us what they've decided next weekend at Paizocon.

1/5 5/5

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

I won't be upset if they don't have a consensus yet.

This as has been evidenced by just the discussion on the Forums is a complex and multi-layered issue that has a lot of ramifications moving forwards, and some of them can't even be parsed yet due to a lack of play information.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 5/55/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

4 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
nosig wrote:


Shaudius, you are causing me to agree with BNW - and I HATE doing that. I'm going to have to go take a shower now just to feel good about myself again, and get rid of the "wet wolf aroma" hanging around...
My nose is 10,000 times better than yours but you get to tell me what smells good. The universe is weird...

Well, aren't you the Big Nose Wolf... ;)

5/5 5/55/55/5

James Anderson wrote:


Well, aren't you the Big Nose Wolf... ;)

Twice I've had people ask me in online games if i was the big nose wolf from the forums...

Scarab Sages 5/5

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


Shaudius, you are causing me to agree with BNW - and I HATE doing that. I'm going to have to go take a shower now just to feel good about myself again, and get rid of the "wet wolf aroma" hanging around...
My nose is 10,000 times better than yours but you get to tell me what smells good. The universe is weird...

There's good smells and then there's good taste...

oops!:
dropped a flask of
Noxious aromatic (flask) Source Animal Archive pg. 13
Price 15 gp; Weight 1 lb.
Category Alchemical Weapons
Description
This glass container of foul-smelling oil shatters easily upon impact. You can throw a vial of noxious aromatic as a splash weapon with a range increment of 10 feet. If a creature with the scent sense is standing in the square of impact, it must succeed at a DC 14 Fortitude save or be nauseated for 1d4+1 rounds. Any creature with scent in an adjacent square must succeed at a DC 12 Fortitude save or be sickened for 1 round. Creatures without the scent ability are not affected by noxious aromatic.

did you "catch" that?

Silver Crusade 1/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Michael Sayre wrote:
There are a lot of needs and interests to balance here and we haven't made any final decisions yet, but the conversations you all are having and the ideas you are proposing are all being taken into consideration as we work on shaping the new campaign and the future of the current campaign.

Good to read.

Silver Crusade 4/5 Venture-Captain, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tallow wrote:
without an "all-in" commitment, Then PF2 and PFS2 will certainly fail.

I see no reason this should be the case from a player's perspective. If we assume that it's going to keep going forever, then PFS2 is going to compete with PF1 just like it would any other system in terms of time commitments and player investment.

And we've got plenty of evidence that Pathfinder Society is not so weak as to be killed off by the existence of another organized play campaign or living campaign.

If we're talking only about Paizo staffer investment, then I'd agree with you.

Either way I don't know that the failure of society play will inevitably lead to the failure of the system it supports.

And I think there may be an argument that it would be to Paizo's benefit to take advantage of cheap and easy ways to enhance the value of the system they've already developed. Most companies with back catalogs like Paizo's see a long tail of sales, where there are continued sales of older titles for months or years or even decades after release. With the launch of PF2, Paizo is staring down a situation where their long-tail sales might absolutely crater. Prolonging interest in PF1 could help reduce the financial pain and keep the long tail viable for just a little while longer.

Not that I'm their business adviser, obviously. But having seen similar situations in publishing I'd be very surprised if they weren't looking at the same general situation.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Michael Sayre wrote:
nosig wrote:
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.

Not in a creepy way or anything, but we're actively listening, and largely avoiding getting involved in these discussions at this point so that our preferences aren't unduly influencing the feedback you all are giving. I literally sat down with the OP team yesterday and went through a binder full of the feedback you all have been giving before discussing the feasibility and technical availability of a lot of the options that have been discussed, both those John included in the original blog post and those that have been proposed since.

There are a lot of needs and interests to balance here and we haven't made any final decisions yet, but the conversations you all are having and the ideas you are proposing are all being taken into consideration as we work on shaping the new campaign and the future of the current campaign.

Michael —

Thank you for posting here, and for listening to all of us. It really is appreciated.

Some thoughts. I understand why all this is being so hotly contested. We’re talking about the future of our campaign — a campaign that we’re all heavily invested in.

We all want what’s best for PFS. No matter what part of the Replay debate we’re on, we have to recognize that the other folks posting here love the campaign as much as you do.

There are other things that I could say about compromise, but I want us to focus on this. This isn’t a thread for retreading arguments over and over or for name-calling — it’s for us to listen to each other.

Hmm

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Oh dear. Did I shush everyone with my librarian super-powers? I assure you it was unintentional!

Hmm

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 * Venture-Agent, Georgia—Atlanta

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone is digesting the last arguments and getting ready to regurgitate new ones...

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Huh. That may be. Or maybe everyone’s enjoying the fine Spring weather, or like me spending some time madly prepping for PaizoCon!

(By the way, Ferret, congratulations on the new star that I see circling your head. Your collection of Lucky Charms is more balanced than mine!)

Here’s hoping that we all get some closure on this soon. Maybe PaizoCon will have some staff reveals for us. I honestly think that the uncertainty is compounding the transition issues.

Hmm

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Masked Ferret wrote:
Everyone is digesting the last arguments and getting ready to regurgitate new ones...

Nom Nom Nom

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 * Venture-Agent, Georgia—Atlanta

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
(By the way, Ferret, congratulations on the new star that I see circling your head. Your collection of Lucky Charms is more balanced than mine!)

Thanks! I have been running a good bit of Starfinder...

The Exchange 5/5

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Huh. That may be. Or maybe everyone’s enjoying the fine Spring weather, or like me spending some time madly prepping for PaizoCon!

(By the way, Ferret, congratulations on the new star that I see circling your head. Your collection of Lucky Charms is more balanced than mine!)

Here’s hoping that we all get some closure on this soon. Maybe PaizoCon will have some staff reveals for us. I honestly think that the uncertainty is compounding the transition issues.

Hmm

I'll be perfectly happy not to have them make any anouncement until a month or two before 2E comes out. Less time for people to push to "open Replays NOW"... I'm still trying hard to get in everything before then. I've let my "need to play" list build up some, used to have only a dozen left, now I've got something like 24...

Silver Crusade 3/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I keep seeing this argument that replay kills campaigns. I don't know if that is true or not; I do trust that there are probably good reasons to believe this. However, there is one thing I want to make clear:

Replay (restricted to PFS1 only) MIGHT kill PFS1. Not having unrestricted replay in PFS1 __WILL FOR SURE KILL PFS1__ because eventually there will be no one with things still to play. I am speaking here as someone who will almost for sure be wanting to play PFS1 in ten years; whether I will play PFS2 at all is still to be seen.

In terms of the argument made earlier that allowing replay in PFS1 but not PFS2 is too hard for our players, I have to say that this makes no sense. We expect our players to understand the current situation where some games are replayable and most others are not. We even expect them to understand that some replayable scenarios can only be played once at higher levels. Surely then they can understand different rules in different campaigns?

My suggestion would be unlimited replay, with the table GM able to veto this without even needing to explain, in PFS1 games after PFS2 starts. And no replay at all in PFS2. No evergreens, no GM star replays.

The current evergreens seem to foster a very unhealthy play style where some people play them on every single character so they don't have to use up single use scenarios.

The Exchange 5/5

Christine Bussman wrote:

I keep seeing this argument that replay kills campaigns. I don't know if that is true or not; I do trust that there are probably good reasons to believe this. However, there is one thing I want to make clear:

Replay (restricted to PFS1 only) MIGHT kill PFS1. Not having unrestricted replay in PFS1 __WILL FOR SURE KILL PFS1__ because eventually there will be no one with things still to play. I am speaking here as someone who will almost for sure be wanting to play PFS1 in ten years; whether I will play PFS2 at all is still to be seen.

In terms of the argument made earlier that allowing replay in PFS1 but not PFS2 is too hard for our players, I have to say that this makes no sense. We expect our players to understand the current situation where some games are replayable and most others are not. We even expect them to understand that some replayable scenarios can only be played once at higher levels. Surely then they can understand different rules in different campaigns?

My suggestion would be unlimited replay, with the table GM able to veto this without even needing to explain, in PFS1 games after PFS2 starts. And no replay at all in PFS2. No evergreens, no GM star replays.

The current evergreens seem to foster a very unhealthy play style where some people play them on every single character so they don't have to use up single use scenarios.

(Edit: sorry for the Wall-O-Text! sometimes I just ramble... in short, I disagree with most of what you say... Now for the long version).

I see some points here, but I actually think you are missing some parts too.

your point: "Replay (restricted to PFS1 only) MIGHT kill PFS1. Not having unrestricted replay in PFS1 __WILL FOR SURE KILL PFS1__ because eventually there will be no one with things still to play." works only sort of. For Individuals... And by that, let me give an example: I have started playing in a new Venue. We have 6 regular players for the last couple months, and we'll have one or two drop-ins depending on what we are playing.

Player A (me) has played almost everything. (and run a bunch too - 4 stars after all). I go to Cons and play at other venues too. So 30 scenarios left to play.

Player B has played a lot of things... he has maybe 50 or 60 scenarios that he can still play (perhaps more - he didn't start till Season 3 and missed a part of 6-7 due to burn-out). He's the guy who will often runs a table if I'm not. Goes to Cons and might play at other venues - sometimes.

Player C has played a fair number of things - she never runs tables but is always up to play the game. Goes to Cons, and sometimes plays at other venues. Has played a bunch, so maybe 50 or 60 scenarios left? maybe more?

Player D has started less than a year ago, but jumped in with both feet. Plays every chance he can, sometimes twice a week, but still only have a few PCs levels 5 and less... So has a lot of things he can still play. I expect he might start trying his hand at running things soon.

Player E is a friend of D who started "back into role playing" just a month or two ago. Plays each week at this venue, highest level PC just made 3nd? Maybe? Still a lot of things he can play.

Player F is another beginner - though he used to play 3rd edition long ago, and has gotten back into gaming with PFS. Plays each week at this venue, PC #1 just made 3nd level. So still a lot of things he can play.

At a rate of 1.5 scenarios a week (I MIGHT be able to play that much - maybe), Player A (me) will run out of things to play in 20 weeks. Now - say we Open Replay up right after that... and it actually DOES do what a bunch of us fear and start to kill off PFS1e. That means that we have killed the campaign for the other players listed above, or at least lessened their fun in it. Several of which had YEARS of games left to play. Why did we do that again? Because I was out of things to play? If I had just moved on to PFS2e, or Starfinder, or CORE, or heck if I had just switched over to JUDGING more those players could have had just as much fun discovering the fun of the Campaign - formed their own opinions of GMT, and the Paracountess, and the Blakros and all the other things that I have very much enjoyed for the last 10 years... without having to share that space with someone there for the Reruns. So say we delay Open Replay a bit, just to give them some time to play a few more games... where do we call it? Were do we start gambling with the future game fun for those other players? Do we give them a couple months so Player B and/or C can maybe get those last few unspoiled games in? Do we wait for Players D, E, and F to get one PC to 12th level? (33 games at 1.5 a week would be ... 22 weeks? so 5 or 6 months?)

rambling aside from the old guy - totally off topic:
I can recall when I was a little kid, helping a friend of mine put a model jet plane together. An entire afternoon of fun, a bunch of fun. So, the next time I went over to play at his house I brought two plastic para-troopers (the kind with parachutes that opened when you thru them into the air... yeah, old school toys...). So I asked about the plane so we could play with it too... But it seemed he didn't have it any more. His older brother had blown it up playing with it with fire-crackers... after all, he was done with it right? I guess that's part of why I worry about other people "breaking" the things I like to play with...

Do we need some kind of Replays to keep PFS1e a viable campaign? Yes, unless we can come up with some type of "new content"/fresh scenarios. Or unless we just replace the current player base... how often do we add new players? I really don't know that...And I guess that doesn't really help us "old guys" much huh?...I mean, we'll have to move on to newer things then...

NOW, about "In terms of the argument made earlier that allowing replay in PFS1 but not PFS2 is too hard for our players, I have to say that this makes no sense." I'll try to explain this. Players are assuming that any privilege currently allowed in the PFS1e will be grandfathered into any new campaign. It's human nature. We are allowed this now, unless it is "Taken away from us". Just look at the sparks set off when it was suggested that Judge Stars wouldn't transfer over. We were "disrespecting judges" and people were very upset at the suggestion. And I have also already heard a player at a local venue state that he was "not going to spend my Judge Replays now, so that I can use them on the new edition's scenarios..." because there will only be a couple scenarios released each month and they'll want to get in as much play as possible with those few. "It's not like they are going to START with the Evergreens in the new system...". Gamers will push the letter of the law. Give us an inch, and we'll take every micron of it. It's what we do. Give us a chance to argue "... well, we could do this in the old system - and this grew directly out of that rules set - so obviously we can do it in this one, even if it doesn't exactly say we can!" I'm still hearing this about 3.5/LG rules ("that's how it worked in 3.5, so that means it works like that in PFS...") and it's been almost 10 years sense we switched over to PFS. Heck, last time I heard it it was from someone who had never even PLAYED 3.5 rules...

(Now for your last two points/aragraphs):
"My suggestion would be unlimited replay,..." Just to be sure - this means "unlimited" in that any number of replays of the same scenario? basically all scenarios become Evergreens for all Tiers? Wow... No. I vote no. (see below)

"... with the table GM able to veto this without even needing to explain,..." this would be a great way to build Judge/player animosity. "Sorry Joe - you can't play at this table. I know it's the only one, and you drove 2 hours to get here, and were the player who requested that this scenario be run tonight - but the GM vetoed you and really doesn't need to explain why...." wow. I know I'm not going to run a table under those conditions. Heck, I don't even want to be a bystander when this happens!

" ...in PFS1 games after PFS2 starts...." at least you want this delayed until we get a new campaign to play in.

"... And no replay at all in PFS2. No evergreens, no GM star replays." While this sounds good to me, I do not think we will be able to enforce it. Maybe if we hit it right from the start, clearly state it and make sure it is ENFORCED... and realizing that it is going to suffer the steady erosion that PFS1e suffered over time...

"The current evergreens seem to foster a very unhealthy play style where some people play them on every single character so they don't have to use up single use scenarios." I actually see this as a problem with your Open Replay suggestion above... Why do you want to convert all scenarios to "evergreens" if you think the current ones foster a very unhealthy play style?

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

Christine Bussman wrote:
The current evergreens seem to foster a very unhealthy play style where some people play them on every single character so they don't have to use up single use scenarios.

That's just, like, your opinion. Badwrongfun. A fail to see how replaying a scenario which is specifically designed to be replayed is an unhealthy play style. Is creating GM babies an unhealthy GM style?

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Oh dear. Did I shush everyone with my librarian super-powers? I assure you it was unintentional!

Hmm

I'm sure it was a Extended Duration silence spell...

I got a '17' on my Spellcraft... did I figure it out?

The Exchange 5/5

Shaudius wrote:
Christine Bussman wrote:
The current evergreens seem to foster a very unhealthy play style where some people play them on every single character so they don't have to use up single use scenarios.
That's just, like, your opinion. Badwrongfun. A fail to see how replaying a scenario which is specifically designed to be replayed is an unhealthy play style. Is creating GM babies an unhealthy GM style?

(After all - Most of these posts are just our opinions - IMHO) Well - I could easily see it turning into Badwrongfun. IF it impacts the fun of the other players at the table... such as being "speed played" (see threads on Aasimar/Tiefling creation "speed-runs"). Or a lot of other easily avoided pit-falls. Often it's just a difference in play style...

Do I think it happens a lot? no.

Do I think it is often just the PLAYERS play style (and the conflict it has with the other players/judge style)? yes, mostly.

Do I think it's a reason to stop producing Evergreens? No. I think they have a very valid place in our choice of games...

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I’m not Redelia, Nosig, but I’m willing to play Devil’s Advocate on this one. I’m thinking that she’s advocating that by making everything evergreen that will mean that at least there’s a wider variety of things to play, so that people don’t feel obligated to hit the same 3 or 4 evergreen scenarios over and over. There’s a concern that you will run out of scenarios if you don’t start every character with some evergreen credit. This has gotten better with the introduction of 3-7 evergreens to alleviate the Level 6 crunch, but is till repeated often enough as advice that low level evergreen play is ubiquitious. One consequence of lifting that replay restriction is that the Confirmation might never get played again!

(I do start off most of my characters with Evergreens simply because I GM a lot of Quests at Conventions not dedicated to gaming, in order to draw in new players. But I refuse to repeat myself on any scenario in PBP. GMing a scenario in PBP means that you have pretty much memorized it by the time the scenario is over, because you read through each section so many times! I won’t traumatize myself that way!)

I will state that Flaxseed does have a situation where a lot of GMs offer an ‘Evergreen trilogy’ for people who want to get their characters up to level 2. We probably see this option offered more than other locations (especially as open games) because we don’t have a schedule selected by the VOs, so most GMs run what they want. Alas, few GMs avail themselves of the wide range of evergreens available, so much of the time it’s the same 3 or 4 offerings that I see in ‘Evergreen Trilogies’.

The other reason why I think we see Evergreens offered a lot is that it’s a safe place to test out a brand new player or GM. You’re not risking your only chance at a ‘real’ scenario with someone who’s brand new or inexperienced. Are other things being offered? Sure. But they may not be offered as publically, or they fill up within minutes of being posted. So I am constantly looking for ways to incentivize more diversity in the postings in our lodge. One reason that OutPost was set to a specific schedule was so that we could do a convention without Confirmation, Master of the Fallen Fortress, Wounded Wisp or Consortium Compact, and to encourage higher level offerings across the board.

I don’t want unlimited replay for PFS, but I am looking for the compromise where we can expand our options to help tables make in the small lodges without having everyone grinding the Lissala arc from Season 4 ad nauseum. It’s an interesting challenge, and I think that I’ll write about it in a more detailed and thoughtful fashion, because I believe that there are different levels of replay. Some are fun — some are horrible — and I think that we can find a way to expand our options without fully upending Pandora’s box.

While I disagree with my wonderful VA on the concept of unlimited replay, I do agree with her that if we don’t find some option to help tables make, we are going to choke out play in all the small lodges.

:/

Hmm

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think one of the better reasons that Evergreens should continue to exist is because they are useful entry points for new players and they provide an incentive for a GM to always be running them.

This is not PFS but I am running Commencement 7 times at Origins, likely this will be played by some amount of new players (although probably not exclusively), I am much happier about this than if I had been assigned to run Sugar Star Heartlove 7 times, because while it might be a good scenario I am not getting anything besides credit for nova for the latter, but the former I can get credit I can also apply to a character, its a win win.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I promised a more nuanced look at this, and here it is. In this replay debate, it’s pretty clear that I tread the middle of the road. Please... have a cup of tea with me, and let’s discuss this together.

★ — REPLAY: The GOOD, the BAD, and the UGLY — ★

Not all replays are the same. The quality of it can vary widely, depending upon circumstances. So I wanted to reflect on the quality of replay in PFS, and how different factors can affect it. I’m going to do my discussion in ‘reverse cowboy-order’ discussing the worst and going steadily up in quality.

★ — The Ugly — ★

Our worst-case scenario is ugly replay. Let’s set the scene, shall we? We’ve all been to a game of the Confirmation where the entire table (or worse, the entire table except the new player) has played the scenario many times before. There are no surprises for the majority of the table, who is anticipating every event and trying to rush through so that they can complete it as fast as possible. In some tables, people meta-game. In others, no one will make a decision because they are all trying not to meta-game. Meanwhile the bewildered new player is losing out on their own discovery process. They have a rotten time because the entire table — including the GM — is phoning it in. There’s also the issues of these tables being actively unfriendly to newcomers in other ways, with the old guard filling the seats and newcomers not being able to find a place. It’s ugly, it’s boring, and it’s unfriendly.

Does it have to be this way?:
No. A table with great players and a great GM can find freshness even in the Confirmation. I had tremendous fun playing the Confirmation in Play-by-Post with several newcomers and my undine watersinger bard, Nixie. Nixie is a great replay character because she’s a fish out of water and so her perspective is oddball. I also had a blast in the Confirmation with an entire table of Core Players, in part because we spent the whole scenario roleplaying with each other, and learning each other’s stories. We made the plot secondary, and we had a great time despite the fact that the scenario was familiar to all of us.

The PFS mantra is ‘Explore! Cooperate! Report!’ When there’s less to explore in a replay, it is more important than ever that the team cooperate to find joy in roleplaying with each other. If replay is limitless, I think there’s a worry that all of PFS will turn into a game without new opportunities to explore.

★ — The Bad — ★

My version of the bad involves replaying a scenario primarily for chronicle benefits. One of the great frustrations of PFS is that you often get a boon or piece of unique equipment on the wrong character. I would guess that the majority of early GM-star replays happen because of one of two reasons:

  • Character A got a chronicle that Character B badly needed, and you want a chance to rectify this by giving B their shot at the scenario.
  • It’s your rematch game. Perhaps you had a bad first run of the scenario. Maybe your GM ended your game of Feast of Ravenmoor after two hours of play at a convention, and you felt cheated. You want a chance to replay it again and do it RIGHT.
We’ll cover rematches in ‘the Good’, so here I’m focusing pretty much on replay for chronicle benefits. This does not have to be Bad, but it can turn out that way if you find yourself meta-gaming for the boon, or if you’re at an entire table of people who are replaying because a specific boon.

When I ran a certain popular Season 4 Arc at Dreamers, I had a table full of people burning stars to replay it. While the adventures were great, there were factors that made this far less enjoyable for me as an organizer. People fought over those seats and one person demanded that I step down as a GM because he had already played, and ‘needed the chronicle more.’ Though I had prepped the scenario, I did step down. At the time I was not even a VA, and only had one star to my name. I was less sure of myself, and let myself get bullied out of a table that I had planned to run. The experience was so irritating for me that I vowed to never run that Arc again. Heck, I decided to never play it, I was that unhappy.

If we do open up full replay in PFS, I want it to still have the hard limit of replay only once per player, offering generic chronicles to deincentivize boon grinding.

★ —The Good — ★

I’ve had lots of great replays at my tables. Over twenty players have burned stars replaying something with me, and I’ve generally had a blast with them.

Replay works best under the following conditions:

  • Story rematches — For one reason or another, your first game was garbled. Or was played with an entirely different type of character, or wrecked in some way. You are eager to play it with a different GM, and maybe find out what the story was supposed to be.
  • Replay with friends — Sure, you’ve played this one. But you remember it was a great scenario and you want a chance to play it because you want to play with these people, and watch what happens when they go through it!
  • Nuanced Replay Reasons — Sure, you want a boon from this chronicle, but you ALSO want a chance to see what your undine might do with all that water, and you want to do it with some good friends. The first star I burned was so that Nixie could experience Overflow Archives with a team of friends that I knew were roleplayers. It was beyond awesome.
  • With only 1-2 Replayers — Most of the table is completely fresh.
  • When your main character isn’t a problem solver. If your character is ditzy, or has a unique perspective or a really STRONG personality with obvious motivations, you can just play their reactions and not worry about meta-gaming. My favorite replay character is Nixie, because she’s oblivious to many things. Her cluelessness about ‘land things’ makes it easier for me to go with the flow and not metagame.
  • When you are replaying to help the table ‘make’ and thus there for the most important reason — to cooperate and help others have fun!
My experience with replay is that I don’t mind a second run through a scenario, especially if it’s been a while since I played it the first time. It can be downright fun if the scenario was one with branching paths and you take the path you haven’t done previously. Oddly, combat scenarios often replay better than roleplay ones — mainly because everyone has different schticks when it comes to combat, and it can be interesting to see how different groups handle a combat challenge. It’s when scenarios become a grind that replay is at its most problematic.

Why did I post this long post? Because I want to challenge all of you with this question: if we allow more replay into our campaign to help small lodges continue playing, how do we as a campaign minimize the damage of bad and ugly replay, while allowing some quality replay to still happen?

The floor is open. Feel free to present your own versions of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly if you wish!

Hmm

1/5 5/5

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

I can say that my first GM star replay will be burnt to replay a table I had a HORRIFIC experience at... and it really wasn't the GM's fault, but rather one player who posted infrequently and when they did they never posted with accurate information and ulimately caused the entire table to fail the mission, they were that out of the loop.

So it was Bad, and I am trying to make it Good, and have high hopes of that.

I was pleasantly surprised recently on a PbP Confirmation run that ran swiftly YET still allowed the party the chance to have some rp AND gave me a chance to play the much-maligned 'Oozemorph' Shifter Archetype -- and was able to contribute to the party's success on the mission while showcasing what the Archetype could and (more importantly) could not do.

That option would not have been available if there weren't 'evergreens' -- I would be trying to 'save' unique games for certain characters and more than likely would have next to no play options, as Christine mentioned above.

It is possible to play an 'evergreen' and have a blast doing it, particularly if the entire table has played it before. Because everyone knows what is coming, the panic/focus/intent has generally turned to roleplay on runs I've GM'd and played in. Just ask the 'all-vigilante' vigilante playtest Confirmation table how that went... :>

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hmm wrote:
if we allow more replay into our campaign to help small lodges continue playing, how do we as a campaign minimize the damage of bad and ugly replay, while allowing some quality replay to still happen?

First, i just want to say its not just going to be small lodges. (If its seen that way a good chunk of the volunteer corps just aren't going to care about it)

People keep using the benchmark of having a game they can theoretically play as the benchmark for when the campaign ends.

You do not play this game with scenarios you can play. You have to play this game with scenarios that a group of geeks can get together on the same day at the same time who all have the same available scenario can play.

Lets say you have 30 players and 20 games left you can play

Of those games bets are about half are high level. 15 of your players don't have a level 7

Bob has a level 7, But Bill is bobs ride and Bills not coming, so that means bob can't make it.

John hasn't had a game he could play in three weeks, so didn't clear his calendar for this and is doing his home game that night.

Then the people that are LEFT are what you have to try to replay with. The more games you lose the more Johns you'll have. Which gets you more bills which gets you more bobs.

You also have an actual human being trying to figure all of this out somehow and just because there IS a correct answer somewhere doesn't mean that they're going to find it. The people that are the most into the campaign and the ones most willing to put the most into it are also the ones hardest to find games for.

You are messing with a complicated interwoven ecosystem with feedback loops here (most of them negative) . Mathematicians answers like yes you still have X numbers of games to play or the campaign isn't dead (ala there are still blockbuster video stores so blockbuster isn't dead right?) are not helpful.

How replay hurt previous campaigns and how to mitigate it.

1) Firsties First.

Ruining a spoiler is a real but small part of how replay kills campaigns. Yes, it hurts , but it doesn't kill. What (from every replay discussion I've ever seen, which is a LOT of them) kills is that the old guard know the sign up system and fill the table before the new guys can sign in. ]

You can mitigate a lot of that with a firsties first policy. Either locally or as a campaign rule or very strongly worded suggestion. People playing first have priority over replayers.

2) Replay for no credit but some reward.

You want to allow people to replay either to make a table or to keep involvement or to react to changes (I don't know how many times we had our geek soduku set , i started to drive to the store, and plans changed en route) but you don't want them running 10 of the same scenario to get a cookie. The closer your geek soduku has to come to perfect to work at all the more often a last minute change is going to wreck your plans.

I think a good balance between the two would be to let people earn Prestige points (which would be simple) or a prestige point like currency (like runetokens) to help mitigate the cost of consumables or the possibility of needing a ressurection. If someone can gain that system to have 50 first level wands.. oh well. You can break core easier with a pet tiger.

3) expand replay a little

Nosigs suggestion is great. Its elegant, simple, straightforward and turns on the hose a little bit without causing a huge flood, so we can titrate it and see how it goes.

Grand Lodge 4/5 * Venture-Agent, Australia—NSW—Newcastle

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well I wrote up a post but I just deleted it cause HMM said it all & better. Assuming others agree about the types of replay that are good & bad (I certainly do) then we can start asking what will encourage the good ones while reducing the bad ones.

The issue I'd see with the 1 season per year approach is that I feel like Paizo's quality of scenarios has improved over PFS's lifespan. While there's certainly gems in the old ones I think a lot of the stuff people would love us to re-run in our local lodge are from the later seasons and it'd be years before they were available. I like the idea, but I hope we can get something better.

Possible suggestion is a PFS 1E public download boon for replays released when 2E comes out with the following restrictions designed to reduce the problems:

  • Limited number of replays (5?) per person per year (Similar to expanded narrative - no GM star component though)
    Capped amount to help with BNW's point about re-players filling all the slots. Once per year since the campaign won't be getting new scenarios. Reasonably low number so existing GM replay rewards aren't invalidated.

  • Downloads with a generic chronicle which you earn when you do the replay instead of the actual chronicle (Same layout as a multi-table with gold amounts per tier).
    Help with HMM's "bad" scenario of boon farming

  • Can only be used to replay a scenario you have not replayed before via any mechanism.
    Hopefully helps with HMM's ugly "phoning it in" scenario - in my experience the more replays of a single scenario the more potential for it to fall into this problem.

  • Can only be used during the year it's for
    To encourage actually using them to let tables run rather than banking them up for some hypothetical future game like a lot of GM's do with stars.

  • 2/5

    Tim Schneider wrote:
    The issue I'd see with the 1 season per year approach is that I feel like Paizo's quality of scenarios has improved over PFS's lifespan. While there's certainly gems in the old ones I think a lot of the stuff people would love us to re-run in our local lodge are from the later seasons and it'd be years before they were available. I like the idea, but I hope we can get something better.

    I totally agree with this. I'm not all that excited by the idea that the only limited replay content for PFS1 for the first year of PFS2 would be PFS1's season 1 scenarios.

    Tim Schneider wrote:

    Possible suggestion is a PFS 1E public download boon for replays released when 2E comes out with the following restrictions designed to reduce the problems:

  • Limited number of replays (5?) per person per year (Similar to expanded narrative - no GM star component though)
    Capped amount to help with BNW's point about re-players filling all the slots. Once per year since the campaign won't be getting new scenarios. Reasonably low number so existing GM replay rewards aren't invalidated.

  • Downloads with a generic chronicle which you earn when you do the replay instead of the actual chronicle (Same layout as a multi-table with gold amounts per tier).
    Help with HMM's "bad" scenario of boon farming

  • Can only be used to replay a scenario you have not replayed before via any mechanism.
    Hopefully helps with HMM's ugly "phoning it in" scenario - in my experience the more replays of a single scenario the more potential for it to fall into this problem.

  • Can only be used during the year it's for
    To encourage actually using them to let tables run rather than banking them up for some hypothetical future game like a lot of GM's do with stars.
  • I very much like almost every one of these ideas, except I would allow ONE replaying of a scenario that one had previously replayed. I think this will provide a little more flexibility in terms of organizing tables.

    Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    Yay! This is the sort of discussion that I wanted to see here! Tim, I adore your suggestions!

    Wei Ji, when I wrote up my ‘types of replay’ post, I was thinking hard about our lovely tengu group, and how you used your ‘Glutton for Punishment’ boon to make several tables happen.

    One of my favorite groups to GM for in PFS was the all-tengu Murder of Crows, who did a run through Murder’s Mark (of Crows) with me that was followed up by Feast of Ravenmoor and finally Tengu of the Righteous Repose. It was a great group with great chemistry but... we ran out of games to play as a group. Literally. Simon Kort of the PFS Session Tracker told us that we were the single most complete group of players on the PFS Session Tracker, and so we had no more games that we could play together as a group.

    Big Norse Wolf, you are correct that this crunch will be affecting everyone. I’m just imagining the tengu group issue echoing everywhere. The Minnesota Lodge uses the PFS Session tracker at a couple of locations to help our most experienced people find games to play, and we are huge. Next year and the year after that, I imagine that we’ll be having to use the PFS session tracker in a much more widespread fashion.

    I’m already encouraging people in Play-by-Post to use the Tracker, but it hasn’t caught on with most of the lodge yet. But even online, I can foresee us needing to use it more and more to get tables to make.

    Hmm

    Silver Crusade 1/5 *

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

    I can say that my first GM star replay will be burnt to replay a table I had a HORRIFIC experience at... and it really wasn't the GM's fault, but rather one player who posted infrequently and when they did they never posted with accurate information and ulimately caused the entire table to fail the mission, they were that out of the loop.

    So it was Bad, and I am trying to make it Good, and have high hopes of that.

    Yes, there are many kinds of problematic players. I had a bad experience when I was in a certain recent quest that shall remain un-stated with someone who in-person was 6-int trying to bluff his way through the intro to philosophy section at the end and just plain DID NOT SHUT UP TO LET ANYONE ELSE TALK! (This was not a case of us being too polite, we tried to interrupt him in every way short of physical violence, he just got louder.)

    I had a previous one where the "stealth" section was a bloodbath that lead to a dead prestige-NPC.

    And let's not forget the one where the guy playing the rogue decided he hadn't gotten to backstab enough things, so he tried to kill the friendly NPC during the epilogue.

    For some odd reason, even the non-malleable (or trivially malleable, like in Confirmation) evergreens never seem to have people act any worse than they do in the once-and-done scenarios.

    1/5 5/5

    Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    About the worst experience I had in an evergreen module was being the only player at the table who had never played it before, making the *tactically sound* decision for a given encounter, and then getting f-bombed and worse by one of the players who had played it a few times before because I wouldn't do what they were trying to do to end the encounter (which could ONLY work if one applied meta-knowledge to the situation).

    I stand by my decisions as a new player of that module.

    Not very many people are as stubborn as I am, though, and some folks might feel the social pressure to 'cave' to the 'predominant table opinion' and that toxicity may lead to people not wanting to play anymore.

    Knowing about the module made it a bit more difficult when I replayed it outside of PFS play and I *knew* what the encounter would do, but the party we had was both more cohesive AND better-equipped to handle said encounter, so my concerns were for naught.

    Silver Crusade 1/5 *

    A bit late to edit my earlier post. I realized on my drive home that my comment about the filibusterer could be taken as far more insulting than I intended. I do not know his actual mental abilities, just that he though himself smarter and more eloquent than he actually was, and solved social situations with an amazing level of diaphragm control rather than convincing words or successful skill checks.

    And for a bit more clarification, I don't blame the players in the other two scenarios. The stealth session went wrong because the party had no stealth characters and no indication whatsoever that stealth would matter when signing up for the session. The stabby rogue was a new player who wanted to play a combat character, but didn't get to accomplish much because there were 4 other combat characters in a low-combat scenario. Those two were down to conflicts between expectations and content.

    Sovereign Court 5/5

    I just had a crazy idea...

    how about after the release of PFS2e, we allow something like "Boon Currency" - where someone can replay a scenario (once) by "paying" for it with an "unused" Con Boon (or maybe more than one - say 3?). Just attach the Unused Boon (or Boons) to the "Replay" chronicle, and allow it like using a GM Star. I've got several old "Mounted Tradition" boons I'm never going to use otherwise...

    Yeah, sorry - I'll just slink away to my dark corner now. No need to see me out...

    1/5 5/5

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

    ...that would work for the folks who have a pile o' Boons.

    Those of us who have been *building the Community* and *handing them out* as appropriate would get nothing out of that offering, Muse.

    Good idea, though, but only really benefits the folks who have thick, overflowing *wads* of Boons.

    Shadow Lodge 4/5

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    *coughs* >_>

    1/5 5/5

    Don't mind the cranky bird, he's just stressed because he's preparing for a Special that got dropped yesterday. AT LEAST HE SHOULD BE! *whipcrack*

    We Got This!

    Sovereign Court 5/5

    Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


    ...that would work for the folks who have a pile o' Boons.

    Those of us who have been *building the Community* and *handing them out* as appropriate would get nothing out of that offering, Muse.

    Good idea, though, but only really benefits the folks who have thick, overflowing *wads* of Boons.

    yeah, but this would allow me to sit down at a game I had not played but you had and hand you one of my extra boons so you could replay this game with me....

    just a thought...

    Sovereign Court 5/5

    how about giving something like Judge Star replays for players who have Played a large number of games.

    My rough estimate of available scenarios to play currently is 265... so how about giving a number of replays (like GM Star Replays, so no Replaying the same scenario more than once ever) after say... 200?

    If a player has 200 scenarios played they get 1 replay. Then for every 10 more they get one more replay.... something like this.

    200 - 1 replay
    210 - 2 replays
    220 - 3 replays
    240 - 4 replays
    250 - 5 replays
    260 - 6 replays
    etc.

    Sovereign Court 5/5

    Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

    Oh dear. Did I shush everyone with my librarian super-powers? I assure you it was unintentional!

    Hmm

    wait, I don't have any "librarian super-powers" - and I figured I was posting something people would object to - so where'd everyone go? is there a major CON I don't know about or something? Are all the Venture Officers in some "secret meeting" and no one else is posting on the boards any more? Surely someone would object to some form of "frequent player replays"?

    5/5 *** Venture-Agent, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Lots of conventions this Memorial Day Weekend.

    I've come to realize my problem with the replay discussion:

    I want to finish my my uncompleted PF1 scenarios (~20 scenarios +season 10) scenarios in the best possible way, which means no replay/a very limited amount of replay.

    Then I'm done. I'll be close to 1,000xp earned in PFS, and ready to move on to the new campaign.

    If PFS immediately goes to unlimited replay, I'll probably just skip out on whatever uncompleted scenarios I still have. So maybe my opinion doesn't matter because I'm not interested in longevity.

    Really I just want an extra ~6month-1 year to tie up loose ends and then whatever.

    I think it's why I like the season 11+ plan with the old adventures slowly becoming available again. It immediately opens a bunch of adventures for replay that I don't care about while continuing to push the envelope forward slowly.

    351 to 400 of 734 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Playtest / First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches All Messageboards