|
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?Well, the core of the prior ... "discussions" seems to have stepped away for a while. Based on your own "morning after" response, you are intentionally suggesting things that you know are bad ideas, but you're still doing so in a civil matter and the whole point of this thread to is collect ideas and gauge interest in them.
Suggestions like yours are the reason I want this debate delayed until after PF2S has had at least 2 years to try to find some fans. Some people are looking at this like PFS is scheduled to die next summer, some are looking at this like PFS continues with a "minor" rule fix. Until we know just how good or bad PF2 is of a game, debating about what to do with a popular gameplay option is mostly emotion and ignorance churning in a whirlwind with some analytical statistics thrown in for color. That's not the kind of foundation I want for decisions that affect more people than just the one deciding.
Ok, to respond to your post.
Most of the prior discussions seemed actually fruitful, in that a large number of suggestions were discussed and a lot of brainstorming was conducted. Some of us even had our opinions changed. And, when compared to many other topics that our posters feel passionately about, discussions on this thread have been pretty civil. For the most part. I actually have been looking at this thread as a success - IMHO we are getting the issue out there and becoming familiar with it now, while we have time to discuss it and what options we have, rather than muzzling discussion and then trying to make a snap change later.
Concerning your reference to my "'morning after' response"... I'm sorry, what? I actually don't know which of my responses you are referencing. In fact, what's a "'morning after' response"? You quoted my line...
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?
but that was in part a fun reference to Hmm's post above that referenced her "librarian super-powers". Then I commented that I normally bring out the negative side of some of us Old Timers (BNW in particular, but a few others too). So I was expecting to see some type of response from them - even if it was to tell me to go back to my cell. (This often happens to my posts - I'm sort of famous/infamous from my "Take 10" days...)
Now, as to "you are intentionally suggesting things that you know are bad ideas," - sorry, this is not true. My suggestions with this alias (Muse) have been...
1) "...we allow something like "Boon Currency" - where someone can replay a scenario (once) by "paying" for it with an "unused" Con Boon ..." - which (IMHO) addresses two issues expressed here and on other threads. A) a desire for more replay (in a limited fashion), and B) Making unused campaign Boons useful in some way (this is discussed in more detail on another thread).
2) "...how about giving something like Judge Star replays for players who have Played a large number of games." What I would call Frequent Player Replays. This addresses A) a desire for more replay (in a limited fashion), and B) a recognition of those players most in need of Something To Play ("We're running out of scenarios we can play" & "I've played everything offered!"). After all, Judges who run a lot of games get "recognition" in the form of Star Replays - this would be something similar, "Frequent Player Replays"...
Both these do suggest something I don't care to see more of (Replays), but both do it in a very limited fashion. And thanks in no small part to this thread my opinion on Replays and the need for more has undergone some (minor) change. If we are going to expand the current Replay rules (something this thread was discussing - the thread title is "First Edition Replay when Second Edition Launches") I would like any policy change to be both well thought out by everyone involved (all of us) and very extensively discussed.
So, no, I am NOT "... intentionally suggesting things that you know are bad ideas...".
And yes, I am "...still doing so in a civil matter and the whole point of this thread to is collect ideas and gauge interest in them." I always try to do my Posts in a civil manner (I assume you meant "civil manner" rather than "civil matter". If this is not true, you have my apology for miss-quoting you). When things become less than Civil I will normally just stop posting on the thread and move on. I am very much into Conflict Avoidance.
However...
these two line in your post seem to be at odds with each other, "...the whole point of this thread to is collect ideas and gauge interest in them." ...this line is followed with... "Suggestions like yours are the reason I want this debate delayed until after PF2S has had at least 2 years...". I do not understand why you wish to have "debate delayed until after PFS2 has had at least 2 years"... I would like the DEBATE to occur, but like I have stressed a lot (with my other Alias's), I would like any change to not be effective at least until after PFS2 is released, if not longer. So your "at least 2 years" would be fine with me, though I think at least some players would have problems with it (they have played everything as it has been released, and so will be totally out of PFS1e games at the end of Season 10 - without some form of Replay or some form of New Content they will be unable to play in the Campaign).
I would like to discuss a large number of choices, to ensure that when we actually make changes (or IF we actually make changes) to the existing rules concerning Replays, that we have considered the largest number of options possible and select the best option for the Campaigns and the people involved with them.
SO, when I think of another possibility I post it here, so that it can be "brainstormed" and modified, changed, adapted and maybe even part of it adopted. I likely will continue to do this - at least until the discussion becomes "in-civil"...
|
. I don’t recall if this was suggested earlier.
Once PF2 is released after season 10 there will be about 300 PFS scenarios not counting modules and adventure paths.
Currently I have played about 100 scenarios under Classic PFS, that means that I have a 67% chance of being able to play at a table with a randomly selected scenario under Classic PFS rules.
Since I manage to play in about 30 scenarios a year. If I keep that rate up, in under two years I would have played 150 scenarios total and my playability chance for any table would be 50%
I tend to think of the point where a player has played enough scenarios that they have a 50/50 chance of being able to play a scenario as a player’s half-life value.
For Classic PFS after season 10 a player’s Half-life value will be about 150 games. The same is true for CORE.
If you add CORE and Classic together then a player’s half-life is about 300 games.
Unfortunately CORE seems to be offered less often that Classic in most places.
Currently a game is ether all Classic or all CORE. The main reason for CORE is to have a game where the only rules needed to be known by GM and players is the CORE rule book. Once PF2 is released it will be a single rule book game initially, and probably the preferred game introduction path by Pazio displacing one of reasons for CORE.
* If PFS changes the rules to allow mixed Classic and CORE play. IE. both Classic character and CORE character can play the at the same table / scenario that changes the Player’s half-life value to 450 games.
That one change increases the number of games a player can play before reaching their half-life by 150 without increasing the maximum number scenario a player can play or adding any replay. This change would also make playing CORE more viable as any game is now CORE playable.
|
|
hay, GlennH, I've not seen this suggestion before, and it actually looks good to me. The only problems I can see with it would be how to TRACK/REPORT it.
Currently a scenario is run/listed/etc. in one or the other campaign (Core or Standard). It is allowed for a player to "transition" a PC from the Core to the Standard campaign (but not the reverse) without effecting the History of the PC or the events it has played in before. In order to "transition" a PC, you just have to PLAY a Standard game with a Core PC... and this shows the problem with your suggestion.
It would be a simple matter to mark on the Tracking sheet that your PC is either Core or Standard - but how is this reported? It would require major changes to the Event Reporting Software (this would require no small effort from Piazo Staff) to allow this.
And it would seriously impact one of the major reasons to be a Judge in Core... "I don't have to know all those fiddly little rules to run a game - I don't have to know more than is just in the CRB"... If every table can be made up of both Core and Standard PCs - then every table is just a Standard game (with maybe) some Core PCs at it.
But this idea sounds nice... maybe someone can expand on it?
|
|
I would think the only code change would be to remove the code that auto converts CORE characters to Standard. It would probably be best to remove the transition rules as well. Go with “Once CORE always CORE”.
All games would then be reported as Standard and the Players would be responsible for keeping their character properly within the CORE rules as written.
As for GMing there are many scenarios that have non-core NPCs and Monsters. Also, the PCs are allowed to purchase non-core items and spell which appear on the chronicle sheets. All that means is that running a CORE game dosn’t mean you woun’t have to learn about all those fiddle little rules from time to time. The earlier season low tier scenarios are usually easier to GM no matter the level of rule knowledge. Besides, I think one of the goals of PF2 is for it to be easier to run than CORE.
The main point is that for the player example (above posts) someone who has already played 100 games and playiing 30 new games a year, mixing CORE and Classic PC would extend the example Player’s half-life from 2 years to 12 years, without changing the replay rules.
|
|
I would think the only code change would be to remove the code that auto converts CORE characters to Standard. It would probably be best to remove the transition rules as well. Go with “Once CORE always CORE”.
All games would then be reported as Standard and the Players would be responsible for keeping their character properly within the CORE rules as written.
As for GMing there are many scenarios that have non-core NPCs and Monsters. Also, the PCs are allowed to purchase non-core items and spell which appear on the chronicle sheets. All that means is that running a CORE game dosn’t mean you woun’t have to learn about all those fiddle little rules from time to time. The earlier season low tier scenarios are usually easier to GM no matter the level of rule knowledge. Besides, I think one of the goals of PF2 is for it to be easier to run than CORE.
But (IMHO) this would effectively kill the Core Campaign (not that that would effect me greatly. After a rush of playing/running Core games I was unable to find any more - so I have/had 5 Core PCs but have Transitioned 2 of them to Standard recently just to get them some play time).
It is just easier to get "beginner" GMs to run games in Core.
SO... while I like this idea, I like it less than the "Re-Number and re-issue" suggestion. (In the interest of full disclosure - that was my suggestion, as Muse is one of Nosigs' alias's). Which I think would do much of the same thing with less work all around (and less impact in the Core Campaign).
|
I really can't see any benefit to this idea.As far as I can tell, that is because there are many different goals being discussed in this thread. Merging Core and Standard is beneficial toward a few of them.
My goal is to let people have fun.
Some explicitly want to finish their own fun, but then have different opinions about what to do as soon as that happens.
No. Its not because I'm confused.
The idea is terrible.
If you're in the core campaign to avoid slumber hex witches and four armed mutant freaks with more abilities than a four armed mutant freak can shake a stick at the core campaign is over for you. Here come the slumber hex using four armed mutant tengus tying you up in their moustaches.
If you're in the core campaign for a replay, your involvement in the core campaign so far has reduced your replays.
If you're not in the core campaigm its exactly like "you can play every scenario twice as a dm and twice as a player"
So there is no group that a hard reset or "you can play every scenario twice" would not be better for.
|
|
a single replay across the board does everything this idea does without negatively impacting existing core players.
Absolutely, and it's simple and easy to understand and to implement. The PFS leadership is going to be neck dip in PFS2 starting August 2019, and the last thing they probably want is some complicated PFS1 replay scheme which involves counting boons, stars, previously played adventures, etc.
|
|
The PFS group in my area usually will schedule two scenarios over the weekend at local game shops. There isn’t much attempt at sudoku, since the player can vary from week to week and the GMs want to have time to prep the scenario.
Some weekends there are two playable game, sometimes only one is playable, and occasionally none. For me there is about a 33% of any one game being non-playable and a 10% chance of both games being non-playable.
Currently It dosn’t take too many games played to start to run in to playability issues and sudoku would become a requirement once you hit the 50% mark of games played.
I like that both options Second replay or Mix CORE & Classic play would reduce the incident of non-playable scheduled games, and extend the 50% mark from 150 games played to about 450 games played.
The Second Replay would be my preference and likely the simplest change.
A metered roll out of Second Replay over years would also work over time And is about equal in preference to me as Mixed Core & Classic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've played 95 scenarios not counting mods, Adv Path, and repeat plays via evergreen or replays.
Having started playing in earnest during season 5, I got in with a group that played all of season 6 and half of season 7 as it came out. The rest of the scenarios scattered about the other seasons.
Your close for season One count is: 5 games in Tier 1-7
Count by season / num in season
3 / 19 in season 0
5 / 21 in season 1
11 / 28 in season 2
5 / 29 in season 3
8 / 28 in season 4
9 / 28 in season 5
25 / 27 in season 6
18 / 32 in season 7
8 / 26 in season 8
3 / 19 in season 9
=========
95 / 256
So, whenever I hear someone saying that Player A has played 50% and Player B has played 50% so that only leaves 25% left they can both play... I wonder. How much of those 50% are the SAME scenarios? If it were purely random I would say 50%, but I think that often this 50% will be pretty close to the exact same games. (IMHO) They may have a 90% match on games played - because often the same games are offered at the same time across many different venues.
When taking in probabilities I assume a random independent distribution of scenarios for each player. It true that if there is a large overlap of scenarios played in a group of people then the number valid playable scenarios goes up.
Also, I would think the distribution of scenarios played is not equally distributed just because some are better than others and there a bias towards having playing the lower tier scenarios over the higher ones.
Contributor
|
I know that this has been going on for awhile now since the original blog post - I've been waiting to post to the public thread until after being able to talk to as many of the veteran players (2+ years playing PFS) in my local lodge as possible for their thoughts, since only a few of them actively partake in the forums. Please consider this post made with my VC hat mostly taken off (except for the fact that I wore it while collecting data which I present followed by my thoughts).
From the original listed options, unfortunately, none of them are overly well-liked here. At first, people thought about Option 4 (unlimited), but after even a quick conversation (or talking to anyone who knew about the problems other organizations had with this, as many people in this thread have already cited) made that one the least popular. Option 3 was the "If we had to pick one of these and had no other say? ...I guess."[/b] choice.
Hmm's Option 5 was fairly well liked around here - moreso than any of the four initial options, but for many of my locals who have been taking part in PFS for as long (and in some cases, longer) than I have (2012), and who are worried that they might not like Pathfinder v2 as much as they do the current system, this idea was one that 100% of them (with variations - see "X" below) liked:
Time-Gated Replay: Replay is allowed, but is restricted by date. X number of years after the date on a chronicle sheet, that scenario may be replayed/GM'd for credit.
"X" was where there was less unity - players who've been part of PFS since Season 2 or 3 were hoping that X would be 1. Several others (myself included) liked 2 or 3 years, on the hypothesis that after 3 years, you've probably forgotten so many things from, say, scenario #0-25 that it sidesteps the numerous problems with unlimited replay, while still allowing players new to PF v1 and "invested" players (a phrase that I really like openly stolen from one of Bill Baldwin's posts to this thread) lots of options to play.
In any event, those are my 2cp on the topic. Thank you to everyone who's contributed to the discussion so far - it was a good read.
|
This idea of waiting X time before being able to replay a scenario has the problem of who makes sure X time has elapsed before allowing a player to play again? Do we leave it up to the honor system? I mean we leave so many other things up to it, why not right?
The fact they haven't re-published season 0 as Pathfinder scenarios in 10 years, leads me to believe there won't be the bandwidth to republish old scenarios with new numbers either.
|
Contributor
|
Tallow, it would be handled as easily as it is now. A player who has already been through a scenario and is either: replaying an evergreen, using a GM-Star-replay, or who GM'd the scenario that they are now playing, is required to inform the GM of this fact when sitting down. If they metagame or ruin the experience for the other players, the GM can excuse them from the table. The system for handling replays and enforcement of bad actors taking advantage of that system has existed for awhile now.
If a special call-out was needed, it could be as simple as putting the onus on the player - requiring that if they're replaying a scenario after X time that they bring the chronicle as "proof" of the date and that it's on a different PC than the one they want to use for the replay.
Nosig, somehow I missed your post when I was going through the thread, so thank you for re-posting it! I do like the idea, but (as uniquely rare as this may be) I agree with Tallow here - I don't forsee anyone at Paizo having the time to put any extra work into altering already-published adventures, especially ones that are 9-10* years old. If I thought it were possible, I would very much be in favor of the re-issue idea (and no, it's not silly, by the by)!
|
|
This idea of waiting X time before being able to replay a scenario has the problem of who makes sure X time has elapsed before allowing a player to play again? Do we leave it up to the honor system? I mean we leave so many other things up to it, why not right?
The fact they haven't re-published season 0 as Pathfinder scenarios in 10 years, leads me to believe there won't be the bandwidth to republish old scenarios with new numbers either.
there is a bit of difference between "re-publishing season 0 as Pathfinder scenarios" and "re-publishing old scenarios with new numbers".
The first would require editing and updating the actual documents (the scenarios).
The second would just require a re-listing of the documents - just make a copy of them and re-name the file. Then relist it as a new product. And it would be a "new" product that would generate revenue (perhaps very little - but perhaps not. It would at least increase sales of older scenarios - product that is already created and does not need any development effort).
At least IMHO...
Or perhaps we could even do this outside of Paizo? Is there a way we could track scenarios played outside of Paizo? So that Paizo doesn't need to spend development efforts to support the (PFS1e) campaign?
It doesn't even require that; just a blog post once a year confirming the next season is unlocked for an additional replay.
Or just a reference in the PFS Guide that says, "as of GenCon 2019 season 0 scenarios may be replayed, each year at GenCon another season is unlocked for an additional replay".
|
Contributor
|
Nosig, somehow I missed your post when I was going through the thread, so thank you for re-posting it! I do like the idea, but (as uniquely rare as this may be) I agree with Tallow here - I don't forsee anyone at Paizo having the time to put any extra work into altering already-published adventures, especially ones that are 9-10* years old. If I thought it were possible, I would very much be in favor of the re-issue idea (and no, it's not silly, by the by)!
but I actually think the best part of this idea is that there is no "altering already-published adventures", just a re-listing of them. In practice, it could be done much like we do the CORE campaign now, where the judge just writes "CORE" to the top of the CR, he would instead alter the scenario number on the CR from "35" to be "11-35".
The only other change would not be to the "already-published adventures", but would be to re-list them in the scenario tracking system, just like they were a "new" product. And for this Paizo would be receiving revenue.
This is not a knock on your idea, just my opinion on the realities of what goes on in Seattle...but I honestly don't think the folks at Paizo would even want to perform the task of re-listing the files once, much less once every X months/years/etc. I'd also wager that even were we to get this idea a ton of traction, there would be push-back that they "couldn't" re-list the file names without also altering the .pdf files, ad nauseum.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just rather we end up with something that doesn't require so much effort of Paizo they say "forget it" and shut down PFS1 altogether, but that will still let me keep making tables.
This is why I still like my "give everyone one additional 'transition replay' per year" scheme for the the first 2-4 years of PFS2. And you get a generic, boon-free Chronicle sheet with only XP, Gold, and Prestige for a transition replay. Such an approach would be easy to implement, and it avoids some of the concerns about replays that have been expressed in this discussion.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So... this thread, again? Golly, has it been that long?
For anyone catching up (or keeping score), here's my (and everyone elses) thoughts on replay for the last 6 years.
Where do I sit on replay now, with PFSv2 coming out with PF2?
One word: Meh.
More words: If the diehard PFS players out there (myself included) want to keep playing PFS v1 stuff for themselves in their own organized play system, why not. The only way you'd be really doing this anyway would be if you had a core group of dedicated locals. Sounds like a "home game PFS reboot" to me. Print of chronicles, change the scenarios, do whatever you want. Make PFS Core+ campaign, where player can use the Core RPG book AND other hardbacks. Make "Occult PFS" where people can only use complicated nonsense classes like the occultist. Do whatever you want for the old campaign that is no longer getting patched or having new content come out for it.
Think of it like any of those old video games people play competitively. Like Super Smash Bros. People play that game hardcore even today, a decade later, with all sorts of match restrictions, modified game modes, and all other nonsense. AND THAT'S GREAT. They're enjoying it, they're doing their own thing. And Nintendo is producing new Smash stuff on the regular. Just like PFSv2 is coming out. Let the diehards have fun with their own infinite replay custom campaigns. Whatever.
But if you do that, don't make us manage it. Offer "vintage PFS" at conventions, replays be damned, but don't make organizers report it. Don't make games count for table credit once Season 10 completes. Retire the old game with the old system. We had eleven years anyway. This is well past the shelf life of a good TV show. We're readily approaching Simpsons decline. Lets let it die with dignity and watch Futurama.
And for the people that haven't played all of PFSv1 stuff yet--keep running it and playing it as long as there is interest. No need for official replay here. Also, most of these people game with less frequency than the diehards, so transitioning to PFSv2 shouldn't be that difficult. However, if it's the people that are being difficult ("I only wanna play PFSv1!") then give them the information so they know why the game is changing. "Sorry, interest for that game is dying out, a new system came out that is being supported by the OPF and it's what we'll be running more and more of," etc. Communicate it up, and they'll decide what they want.
Anyway, see you all next year when this topic comes up again.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
So... this thread, again? Golly, has it been that long?I mean, no, but this one WAS opened by Tonya... :P
Oh I know.
But after 400 posts we're approaching that place that I'm all to familiar with, with people advocating for replay with reasons A, B, and C. People advocating against replay with reasons X, Y, and Z. The same, eternal, circular discussion that seems to have a life of its own.
I think a more poignant discussion might be "do you want PFSv1 to be managed by the OPF, so that we ensure all the old rules are being followed, or, after a year or two, should PFSv1 be opened for local groups to enjoy and manage how they see fit, with no OPF oversight." And I'm firmly in the latter camp.
If we stop getting sourcebook errata, PFSv1 guide updates, scenarios, and the like -- at some point people will distill the "best ways" to play PFv1 and the game will enter the broken place that 3.5 still dwells in. And at that point, I don't think we should officially organize PFSv1 events anymore. Individually, if people want to handle it--sure, but I don't want to have to police games of busted characters cakewalking through their fifteenth replay of that one scenario that gives you a bonus feat. That's so out of wack with what PFS should be that I wouldn't even recognize it.
|
So... this thread, again? Golly, has it been that long?
For anyone catching up (or keeping score), here's my (and everyone elses) thoughts on replay for the last 6 years.
Where do I sit on replay now, with PFSv2 coming out with PF2?
One word: Meh.
Considering all the things that got expressed as incontrovertible fact in those threads that were exposed in this thread as not incontrovertible fact, I'd say that this thread served a purpose that the rest of those threads did not meet. Beyond that, since its the same 6-7 people posting against replay in all those threads, calling it you and everyone's else's thoughts on the matter doesn't really hold much weight to me, especially since each one of those threads contains a new person arguing for replay only to be shot down by the same 6-7 people using arguments that aren't incontrovertible.
We've been through all of that in this thread already.
Heck even the first point in the thread you linked contained a statement for which I can't find any basis beyond literally one campaign which had other issues, yet you state it as if its been tried in other campaigns, plural, with a parade of horrible results.
"Replay has been tried in other Organized Play Campaigns (OPCs) and has led to more problems than solutions. People have "farmed" scenarios and spoiled fun for new players, which inhibits growth and the overall health of an OPC. "
I'd encourage you to go back and read this thread to get some of the stuff that was hashed out in this thread that I have looked and saw nary a peep of in the other threads, mostly just your above comment accepted as fact when it is anything but.
So at the end of the day, this thread served a pretty useful purpose, at least to me, namely it hopefully disabused people of the notion that replay has to be a campaign killer. The fact of the matter is the most popular OP campaign in many regions going right now has far more replay than PFS has ever had.
|
|
Have you actually ever played PFS?
Yes, and I've been playing various organized play campaigns for over 20 years now, but even if I hadn't, I fail to see how that's relevant to the argument that replay has ruined other organized play campaigns. The argument I was responding to was not about what affect replay has had on PFS. It was an argument about what effect replay has had on other campaigns means we shouldn't have it in PFS, something I have ample experience in.
Frankly, I find your comment offense and unbecoming of someone who is supposed to represent PFS on a regional level. Based on some of the information I've read in recent days, I am questioning more and more what the actual criteria are that Paizo uses to pick their RVCs. Some appear to be awesome in their community interactions, and others, based on what I've seen, not so much.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you actually ever played PFS?Yes, and I've been playing various organized play campaigns for over 20 years now, but even if I hadn't, I fail to see how that's relevant to the argument that replay has ruined other organized play campaigns. The argument I was responding to was not about what affect replay has had on PFS. It was an argument about what effect replay has had on other campaigns means we shouldn't have it in PFS, something I have ample experience in.
It is just that IMHO many scenarios are about the story not the combats and having played through them once, there's not much point to playing them again. A (murder) mystery isn't as much fun if there's players that knew who did it already.
Frankly, I find your comment offense and unbecoming of someone who is supposed to represent PFS on a regional level. Based on some of the information I've read in recent days, I am questioning more and more what the actual criteria are that Paizo uses to pick their RVCs. Some appear to be awesome in their community interactions, and others, based on what I've seen, not so much.
Well, participation is one, and wow, I REALLY find your post offensive. My title is not a muzzle, I am still allowed to speak my mind thank you very much.
|
|
It is just that IMHO many scenarios are about the story not the combats and having played through them once, there's not much point to playing them again. A (murder) mystery isn't as much fun if there's players that knew who did it already.
Which is a fine opinion to have, but is unresponsive to the point I was trying to make which was that the first point in Walter's thread was not incontrovertible fact.
Well, participation is one, and wow, I REALLY find your post offensive. My title is not a muzzle, I am still allowed to speak my mind thank you very much.
And how do you know my play history, apparently looking at someone's play history is something that gets you removed from your position as a VO, or so I've been told.
Based on what I've been told by other VOs they don't view their ability to speak freely the same way, but even still you're supposed to be acting as an ambassador for Pathfinder Society, ridiculing someone's stance based on how much they've played is the exact opposite of that. And, I say again, how would you have any idea how much I've played Pathfinder, all you know, authoritatively anyway is how much I've GM'd PFS, anything else and I would question whether you also should be removed from your position as Michael Eshleman has been for viewing someone's play history without authorization.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
And how do you know my play history, apparently looking at someone's play history is something that gets you removed from your position as a VO, or so I've been told.
Well, participation is one, and wow, I REALLY find your post offensive. My title is not a muzzle, I am still allowed to speak my mind thank you very much.
Where did I mention your play history?
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
Where did I mention your play history?When you questioned whether I even play PFS. I play PFS plenty, in fact, I probably play PFS more than you, prove me wrong.
My question regarding your PFS play was not an attack. It's just that your posts seem very theoretical. Maybe you are just very good in filtering out your own personal experiences, but you don't seem connected to this campaign.
|
|
My question regarding your PFS play was not an attack. It's just that your posts seem very theoretical. Maybe you are just very good in filtering out your own personal experiences, but you don't seem connected to this campaign.
How did my post about replay not ruining other organized play campaigns seem theoretical to you?
Beyond that, in what way do I not seem very connected to this campaign, was it based on my last post, is it based on the amount of GM stars I have? Is it based on the fact that I'm posting in a thread about this campaign at 3 am my time. I'm not sure what you are basing your assertion on.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My question regarding your PFS play was not an attack. It's just that your posts seem very theoretical. Maybe you are just very good in filtering out your own personal experiences, but you don't seem connected to this campaign.How did my post about replay not ruining other organized play campaigns seem theoretical to you?
Beyond that, in what way do I not seem very connected to this campaign, was it based on my last post, is it based on the amount of GM stars I have? Is it based on the fact that I'm posting in a thread about this campaign at 3 am my time. I'm not sure what you are basing your assertion on.
I'm sorry, I didn't know what timezone you are in. Let's call it a night (morning in my case).
|
I guess I'm not sure what problem we are trying to solve here.
Over the ten years that PFS has been running there have been a large number of players. Most of them have appeared however in the last two-three years.
Die-hard fans of the setting are likely to transition to PFSv2 and the all-new content. There will be some folk who don't like PFv2 and have already played all the current content. Unless there is a mass non-uptake of PFv2, I don't see Paizo changing their mind about not producing any more v1 content. So they are either going to finish up the scenarios they have not played and then change their mind about v2, or transition to a different gaming system, or leave the hobby.
Most folk however will find that there is still a vast amount of content out there they have not played. What we are likely to see is a resurgence in season 1-4 scenarios being offered - which in the last few years have been harder to find GMs for.
If you look through the last couple of years worth of charity give-away offerings, what do you know.. Paizo have "given away" most of those scenarios, allowing a larger number of folk to run them without cost concerns. Almost like they are anticipated the problem and wanted to keep people happy while the fan-base did a transition to version 2.
Don't get me wrong, I was highly disappointed when I learned that season ten was going to be the end of PFS as well know it today - or at least those characters. However like any good series of books, sometimes it is best to let characters rest and move onto new stories and new opportunities.
Not every character needs to make it to level 12 (or 20!) to have a satisfactory conclusion.