pathfinder Society 2.0 replay rules


Pathfinder Society

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
2/5 5/5 ***** Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston

I think once the other ACP/reputation/GM boon issues are resolved; (which includes some of the slow track issues that are being raised for the first time now) and the long list of boons has gotten some time (filtered to only the ones you're eligible for, consistent sorting, searching, etc), we can revisit what layer of features/bugs are needed to support regular replays.

Ie right now, I believe, even if you spent a GM glyph on a replay, you wouldn't get the reputation/ACP for the session. You definitely should get the former, and I'd think the latter. But this is another level of complication for tech team and for the reporting system, it never handled it correctly for PFS1/SFS, but it didn't matter if your listed fame/reputation was off. Now it does since it gates access to faction boons.

For-credit replays are rare, but they should be supported better than non-for-credit-just-to-make-a-valid-table replay.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd be interested in being able to in the future spend X amount of ACP to get a replay.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

Indeed. Similar to whatever formula they used to grant those replays towards the end of PFS1.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 ***

Gary Bush wrote:
Sean Montgomery 7819 wrote:
<<snip>> (sometimes just to help out and make a table legal)...

This the ONLY time that a person can replay an adventure that does not have the repeatable time. It is not a "sometimes" thing.

I don't think awarding AcP for replaying an adventure that is not a repeatable should be allowed. We already have so many things special things happening on AcP that the website is still not correct.

Oh shoot, I feel sheepish. Obviously I don't have a lot of experience with players replaying scenarios for no credit as I did not realize it could not be done unless it was necessary to make a legal table. I mistakenly allowed a player to join two of my games at a convention for no credit, one made 4 at the table and the other made three, but it looks like I was not to have allowed this unless there was only 1 at the table? I hope that would not invalidate the other players experience as it was an honest mistake on my part. The player was under the assumption (not from me as I didn't know either way, but from other GM's he had played with) that he would not receive any credit for replaying with his character despite the risks and resource expenditure, but thought he would still receive Achievement Points for his participation. I am glad I know now how what the RAW is for sure and can correctly advise players going forward.

Regardless of my previous actions however, I still think that it would make sense to at least provide this small benefit to someone replaying a scenario considering the risk they take and the enjoyment they contribute by helping fill out a table.

Also, I would like for a reconsideration of the RAW: "Replaying for No Credit: A player may replay an adventure to help create a legal table. Replays grant no rewards. Players should record any items expended or gold spent and may be given a blank Chronicle for this purpose. This is an exception to the restriction that you should never assign more than one copy of a Chronicle to a given character." -

-In my opinion it would it would make sense to allow someone to legally replay a scenario to help fill out a table size of 4 still while still keeping with the spirit of the current RAW rules. Considering that a legal table is now 2 players (for for scenarios up to min level 5), as written you can only allow a replaying person if you have 1 player. (Or 1-2 players for the eventual min level 7 tables). (Am I interpreting the RAW rules correctly?)

As a GM I know it tends to be easier to have four real players than 2 real players and 2 NPC's even though that is a legal table. Also my opinion, but I feel like 4 players really is a sweet spot for everyone having a great time without turns taking excessively long. With 2 living players I feel like you lose a little bit of the role-playing possibilities (I am sure some people can really manage to role play two characters at a time really well in my experience if feels less natural).

These are all just my opinions of course and maybe there is something I am not considering as far as why the organized play RAW are the way Rules Are Written. :)

Liberty's Edge 5/5 ***

Gary Bush wrote:
Sean Montgomery 7819 wrote:
<<snip>> (sometimes just to help out and make a table legal)...

This the ONLY time that a person can replay an adventure that does not have the repeatable time. It is not a "sometimes" thing.

I don't think awarding AcP for replaying an adventure that is not a repeatable should be allowed. We already have so many things special things happening on AcP that the website is still not correct.

My last post was a bit of a rant about my opinions. I meant to address what you were stating Gary about not "awarding AcP for replaying an adventure".

For reference,this whole conversation got started as my player from the Convention that I mistakenly allowed to replay in my games (in one case to make the 4th player and in the other to make a 3rd live player) Contacted me because he had received credit for one session (and seemed to be under the impression he did receive AcP for it) but had not gotten reported and recieved AcP credit for the second game.

Unless I am misunderstanding what he was seeing on his organized pay records online, it seems like the AcP system is already set up to award the credit for replaying and is relying on proper enforcement of the RAW to keep this from happening. As the convention organizer found the RAW rules, the credit from the game he did get the AcP for was removed per RAW, it just felt like a blow to my player who really helped fill out the table and make the game fun and really wasn't expecting much for the risks he was taking except a few AcP points.

I bring this up because Unless I am misunderstanding something, it feels like there would not need to be any changes to the way AcP's are awarded and therefore no taxation on the resources already devoted to making the AcP system online work without bugs.

Even if I am misunderstanding the situation and there would have to be some work to make this happen on the back end eventually, can you really tell me it dosen't feel right to make that happen? Even if not today due to other more pressing concerns with the system?

Maybe its just me, but I feel like it is reasonable and fair and should at least be a goal we can work toward in the future.

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

2 people marked this as a favorite.

@Sean: Don't worry.

The move to allows 2 real players +2 pregens is a relatively new one, intended to help out very small lodges. The intention wasn't to block off the possibility of padding a table to 4 with real (re)players, just to offer an alternative if you don't have those players.

So the summarize, what is currently possible, supposing you have 2 real people freshly playing the scenario:
- Add two pregens under the control of the GM
- Add two pregens but delegate control to the fresh players (can be overwhelming)
- Add two pregens but delegate control to re-players.
- Let two re-players play with their own characters. Their PCs won't get any rewards but can still die, expend consumables etc.

These aren't in any particular order in which they must be tried. The GM chooses, while keeping in mind what they expect will be the best experience especially for the fresh players.

There are a couple of things to keep in mind:
- A re-player using a pregen is at less risk than when using their own PC because they can assign the "credit-but-not-really" to an empty character number.
- A re-player using their own PC takes more risk, but real PCs tend to be stronger than the pregens.
- Care should be taken that replayers don't spoil the adventure for fresh players.
- It's poor form to treat pregens as cannon-fodder.

As I understand, the phrasing in the Guide is being looked at to make this all clearer than it currently is.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Sean,

Sorry if I came off overly harsh. That was not my intent.

The guide is clear about when a player can play a scenario that they already have credit on. It is to make a table legal. The definition of a legal table has changed recently. It was 3 players. Now it is 2 players. As far as I recall this legal table size applies are 3 systems. But my memory may be faulty.

If a player does play a scenario to make it a legal table, they can't play a character who already has credit for scenario. The reason why is that a chronicle will be issued with 0 XP, 0 gold/credits, and 0 reputation/fame/prestige earned. All 3 guides state that a character may not have more than 1 chronicle from the same adventure applied to the character. The GM should also note on the chronicle that the adventure was played to make a legal table.

In your case, as Lau stated, don't sweat it. There is no need to adjust chronicles provided they were issued as 0 everything.

Conventions are different beasts. People take time to play at them, either by traveling (hopefully again soon!) or virtually. I would much rather have people playing. So I don't fault you on allowing the two players to play, as you did.

My main objection to AcP on replays for adventures that a player already has credit for (and is not a repeatable) has to do with the complexity that this scenario will cause for the Paizo website.

I have not tried it, but it could be possible that AcP is award already.

4/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean Montgomery 7819 wrote:
Gary Bush wrote:
Sean Montgomery 7819 wrote:
<<snip>> (sometimes just to help out and make a table legal)...

This the ONLY time that a person can replay an adventure that does not have the repeatable time. It is not a "sometimes" thing.

I don't think awarding AcP for replaying an adventure that is not a repeatable should be allowed. We already have so many things special things happening on AcP that the website is still not correct.

For reference,this whole conversation got started as my player from the Convention that I mistakenly allowed to replay in my games (in one case to make the 4th player and in the other to make a 3rd live player) Contacted me because he had received credit for one session (and seemed to be under the impression he did receive AcP for it) but had not gotten reported and recieved AcP credit for the second game.

This rule is intentionally written with some wiggle room so that GMs can decide, based on the circumstances, what is right for them. There may be times when it is appropriate for someone to replay a table as the "fourth" to make it a legal table. There may be times when it would harm the table. The rule is written such that you can use your discretion to decide whether the player is "needed" or not to make it a legal table.

Sean Montgomery 7819 wrote:
Unless I am misunderstanding what he was seeing on his organized pay records online, it seems like the AcP system is already set up to award the credit for replaying and is relying on proper enforcement of the RAW to keep this from happening. As the convention organizer found the RAW rules, the credit from the game he did get the AcP for was removed per RAW, it just felt like a blow to my player who really helped fill out the table and make the game fun and really wasn't expecting much for the risks he was taking except a few AcP points.

You are not supposed to include players who are replaying for no credit in the scenario reporting.

4/5 ***

Gary Bush wrote:


My main objection to AcP on replays for adventures that a player already has credit for (and is not a repeatable) has to do with the complexity that this scenario will cause for the Paizo website.

I have not tried it, but it could be possible that AcP is award already.

The Guide states that players replaying for no credit should not be reported on the table. So this should not affect the Paizo website at all.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:
Gary Bush wrote:


My main objection to AcP on replays for adventures that a player already has credit for (and is not a repeatable) has to do with the complexity that this scenario will cause for the Paizo website.

I have not tried it, but it could be possible that AcP is award already.

The Guide states that players replaying for no credit should not be reported on the table. So this should not affect the Paizo website at all.

Hmm.. I have missed that part. I have reported them, at least on 1e tables, but with no rewards.

Maybe this is a solution. Report them but with 0 rewards. The Challenge would be on bonus reputation.

4/5 ***

Gary Bush wrote:
Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:
Gary Bush wrote:


My main objection to AcP on replays for adventures that a player already has credit for (and is not a repeatable) has to do with the complexity that this scenario will cause for the Paizo website.

I have not tried it, but it could be possible that AcP is award already.

The Guide states that players replaying for no credit should not be reported on the table. So this should not affect the Paizo website at all.

Hmm.. I have missed that part. I have reported them, at least on 1e tables, but with no rewards.

Maybe this is a solution. Report them but with 0 rewards. The Challenge would be on bonus reputation.

Except then they still earn AcP, and the decision was that replays for no credit should not earn AcP. Also, they would still gain boon access.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

I am hoping a PF2 version of the Expanded Narrative will be offered at some point. It will likely still be tied to GM'ed games and Glyphs for each year, but the number of games per and what AcP it would cost would likely be something to mull over. It also will be a once a year buy in, and expire at Gen Con each year. (So starting in season three and so on)

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden

I think Expanded Narrative as a mildly priced AcP boon (or just a free, once per year boon) would be perfect. In PFS1 it kept GM replay at a not too high, not too low point. It keeps replaying as essentially a GM reward, whereas being able to buy replays directly with AcP would short-circuit that.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 *** Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:
Gary Bush wrote:
Online Guide Team Lead - JTT wrote:
Gary Bush wrote:


My main objection to AcP on replays for adventures that a player already has credit for (and is not a repeatable) has to do with the complexity that this scenario will cause for the Paizo website.

I have not tried it, but it could be possible that AcP is award already.

The Guide states that players replaying for no credit should not be reported on the table. So this should not affect the Paizo website at all.

Hmm.. I have missed that part. I have reported them, at least on 1e tables, but with no rewards.

Maybe this is a solution. Report them but with 0 rewards. The Challenge would be on bonus reputation.

Except then they still earn AcP, and the decision was that replays for no credit should not earn AcP. Also, they would still gain boon access.

I have been educated! Thank you!

51 to 64 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / pathfinder Society 2.0 replay rules All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society