| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Getting 6 people around a table with physical distancing measures in place is going to be difficult enough. Adding 6 more feet of table space to accommodate a 7th players is likely to be nearly impossible at most gaming stores.
At the point where it's safe for people to gather, then social distancing isn't going to be a thing at tables.
And what's your estimate for when that will happen?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has Paizo considered pushing this back given the current real-world situation?
You are asking about Paizo's decision making process given the real-world situation.
Given that Paizo implemented this new guideline AFTER they had to close their business for 6 weeks because of the "real-world situation" AND AFTER they cancelled their annual convention because of the "real-world situation", I'm just wondering when you see this "real-world situation" being different enough that Paizo would change their mind.
|
Leaving aside the other issues, I'm not a huge fan of the maximum table size change.
Yes, 7 player tables are a challenge, and tend to break PFS2 scaling a little worse than the other systems. However I still prefer one 7-player table to two 3-player tables, or turning someone away after they show up at the venue.
At my venue I'm more likely to have a player who can swap to GM than I am to be able to pull in a second non-signed up GM. The last minute GM is likely running the scenario with less prep than they would have normally done, since they were hoping to play non-spoiled first. And if they prep and then the 7th is a no-show, they need to switch back to playing, and the disappointment grows.
With 7->8 players being the forced split, we used to end up with a 3 and a 4 player table, so we've gone from 1 'rough' table to 1 'rough' and 1 good table, IMO. And even if there's a no-show, we still have two viable tables and don't need last minute shuffling again.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Has Paizo considered pushing this back given the current real-world situation?You are asking about Paizo's decision making process given the real-world situation.
Given that Paizo implemented this new guideline AFTER they had to close their business for 6 weeks because of the "real-world situation" AND AFTER they cancelled their annual convention because of the "real-world situation", I'm just wondering when you see this "real-world situation" being different enough that Paizo would change their mind.
The reality is that there is too much demand and not enough table space.
|
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the demand is that high for online games, then perhaps it is time for folks to start stepping up and running some games instead of just playing.
If you are GMing and see the same players over and over, you could offer to let them use your prep materials (sharing out google slides or Roll20 maps and tokens), to help them transition.
Since demand is so high, having the, run the scenarios they played shouldn’t be an issue, as there will always be folks who haven’t played the scenario.
Really, the solution isn’t bigger tables (I would rather have a 7 player table in person than online), it is more GMs. And, online, there is even the option of giving more time to prep!
Premier Event Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is never a “good” time to implement a rules change that can potentially make it more difficult to seat as many players as possible. Better sooner rather than later, IMO. There are places where the change is not going to be ideal no matter when it happens. Some could argue now is the “best” time since you literally have the entire community to draw from for attendance right now. Finding an extra player or GM for your event is easier when you have no limitations on venue size, travel, etc. And if you really do have to turn a player away, better to do it when their investment to join the game is at its minimum.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I was expecting guidance that tables be limited to 3-4 players, given physical distancing guidelines in most states.
If you have 7 players, you should break it up into two tables. I won't play at a 7 player table, and I dislike GMing them.
Online, tables are usually limited to 6. All of the online signups only have 6 placeholders, and I can't recall ever playing with a 7 person group.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
If the demand is that high for online games, then perhaps it is time for folks to start stepping up and running some games instead of just playing.
I'm pretty sure the covid situation knocked out more volunteers than we could replace including myself.
Personally, I was expecting guidance that tables be limited to 3-4 players, given physical distancing guidelines in most states.
If you have 7 players, you should break it up into two tables. I won't play at a 7 player table, and I dislike GMing them.
Online, tables are usually limited to 6. All of the online signups only have 6 placeholders, and I can't recall ever playing with a 7 person group.
So I partake it that your in a relatively slow region that hosts a game once every other week? I don't mean that to be snarky but jeez we're a weird area.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm in favor of this change. We've gone over the disadvantages of 7 player tables extensively. But what I think deserves attention is the reasons why now is a good change to finally do this.
This edition is built with a 4P party in mind. PFS2 scenarios are also written with a 4P party in mind. If you split a 6+1 table into two smaller tables with a pregen each, you're not applying an awkward 4P adjustment, you're returning to playing the scenario as originally intended.
Also, there are pregens available are more fine-grained level ranges, and the pregens are more well-rounded and have better stats than in the past. A pregen is not a liability in this edition. And 3 players who pick a pregen that fills a missing niche in their party, can do pretty well.
I'm working on packaging several evergreens that allow any given player at the table to easily step up and run a second table. This is good flexibility to have anyway (what if the regularly scheduled GM can't make it).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gotcha. That helps me understand where you're coming from.
Although you probably don't realize it, you are a statistical outlier. The vast majority of online games are capped at 6 players already.
A better way to phrase this discussion isn't "I'm in favor of the change", but rather, "I'm in favor of the already-common practice being officially codified in the Guide".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have you gathered data to confirm this?
Contrary to what some people may say, I'm not generally known to make baseless claims.
I've participated in over 75 PbPs spread across nearly five years, including at least one online Convention every year.
One of those games had 7 players, which was an accident from having three signup locations.
No online Convention I've participated in had a column for signing up more than 6 players.
Every online signup I recall with a wait list asked for players beyond the initial 6.
Every in-person Convention I've attended, including PaizoCon and GenCon, worked under the assumption of a max table size of 6.
So it is by far the more common practice.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there’s been a general sense that it’s easier to turn a player away online, because they haven’t traveled to the location to play. And they aren’t limited to signing up for the games at that location. So 7 player tables are seldom run.
I have seen a few, which usually form from pickup games where there’s either confusion about who said they were in first, or the GM makes a call in the moment. But I can’t remember seeing a signup sheet for a 7-player game, and I’ve been doing PFS online for about as long as I’ve been doing PFS (since 2012).
In general, I’m not a fan of policies that encourage turning players away. But I also haven’t enjoyed many of the 7-player tables I’ve been at. Ultimately, I think this will be a good thing.
To me the only thing making it awkward timing is that people are still learning the 2E rules, so in a group of 8 people, there might only be 1 who feels capable of GMing. But that shouldn’t be the case forever.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To agree with Nefreet...
At any convention I have been to, which includes Paizo Con, Gen Con, Gamehole Con, Con of the North, 2D Con, SkålCon (yeah!), and Jim Con, as well as many online PBP conventions, 7-players tables are almost unheard of.
I have run seven player tables, including 1-99 at Gen Con (due to overselling of tickets by accident), but I wouldn't recommend it. At a convention, it certainly dilutes player experience.
At our local Game Days, we only very rarely have 7-player tables, and that only with GM and player consent. Of course, we do schedule our games out several weeks on Meetup, so perhaps we're unusual in that we don't usually need seven player tables.
----
As for my suggestion above, I know that there may be a shortage of good GMs willing to do online GMing. That is why I suggested that GMs that are already doing it help out regular players (who should have a decent grasp of the rules as well as VTTs) to step up.
The way I see it... if there is more demand than supply, we can either:
1. Create poor gaming experiences, and make it that much harder on our GMs (7-player tables)
2. Run more tables with the GMs that we have, causing our often already overtaxed GMs to burnout. This will cause us to have even FEWER online tables.
3. Help train new online GMs to run more tables to close the gap.
I cannot see how #3 is not the only viable, sustainable option.
---
As to not knowing the rules well enough... here's what i always say. Typically there are 4-6 additional people at your table that are willing to help you learn! And depending on the online format, you might have more time to research rules (this is especially true for Play-by-Post!) Take a chance! You might like it!
Also, as I told my tables at Gen Con when this thing debuted... "I've run at most [1-5] tables more than you have played, and I've had the rules no more than 1 month prior to you seeing them. We'll make mistakes, but we'll have fun doing it! We're all here learning this together."
|
Premier Event Coordinator
|
Where is "here"?
The greater Boston area.... why does this matter?
I agree with why does it matter, but probably for different reasons. If you have moved your local gameplay online, why would it be restricted (assuming it is)? If you are experiencing low player or GM response, open up the invitation to the online community. There are always people looking for games so it would presumably eliminate your 7player table issues.
|
Premier Event Coordinator
|
...big cons when asked by hq or marshalls to seat a seventh
I generally don’t allow it at Premier Plus events unless the issue is out of the player’s control. If they didn’t signup in advance or is waitlisted or decided at the last minute to change their mind on which game they want to play and the one they want is full, etc. I will say no. If something happened like the convention managed to oversell the tickets beyond our stated max, or the GM was a no show, etc. we will try to get them seated as best as possible even if it means considering 7-player tables.
Also, like anything else, people have differing opinions. It is possible for an HQ to make that decision on their own in the moment if they feel it is the right thing to do. I’m not going to punish them for a good-faith solution even though it’s not what I would have done.|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Oh. That is far from the case.
My immediate city, perhaps, but I frequent roughly half a dozen game stores.
Or, I did. Nobody's hosting games now.
I consider half a dozen to be on the low end. I think that's why your kind of confused by this.
Also, there are pregens available are more fine-grained level ranges, and the pregens are more well-rounded and have better stats than in the past. A pregen is not a liability in this edition. And 3 players who pick a pregen that fills a missing niche in their party, can do pretty well.
Ehhhh.... They're still not the best compared to an optimized PC.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's why your kind of confused by this.
No, I think the confusion is related to Online Lodge participant vs. Physical Lodge participant conceptual misunderstandings.
To those of us who are Online Lodge participants, especially PbP lodge, limiting games to 6 makes sense to us. My reasons for limiting my tables to 6 online, which some or all of them are shared by other GMs, are:
1. The potential player pool draws from the entire planet, literally.
2. The simultaneous GM pool also draws from a very large crowd. The PbP Lodge alone has dozens of GMs actively GMing at any given moment, so that 7th, 8th, 20th sign up to your table has somewhere else to go.
3. An important reason for me, personally, more pertinent to PbP but not impossible for VTTs, is that a player can play in more than one scenario at a time. This example is very specific to PbP because I can't imagine a player multiboxing more than two VTTs, but if you're playing in three games currently, I don't need add a 7th seat so you can play in four concurrently.
What we have now is physical lodges moving their games to VTT, whether or not they're publicizing their events. So for those who have simply, privately moved their lodge online, it's no different than it has been in their physical locations: if they commonly had to run seven player tables, they still do. Maybe even more because fewer of their fixed group are comfortable with VTTs.
So, a solution could be to post your events on Warhorn as online events. I know some have done this, and I almost signed up for a SF area table but couldn't figure out which VTT they were using. You'll get more GMs. The down side is you'll get more players too, from literally all over the planet.
Regardless, it would help reduce confusion if, when discussing or mentioning "online" play that you clarify that you're talking about participating in the greater online region or talking about moving your local lodge play to a private online venue.
|
|
You asked whether I was in a "region that hosts a game once every other week". I am not. I live in the Capitol of California, the most populous state, and regularly game in the Bay Area, where there is a fairly high density of game stores. Usually more than one table at each store.
So I don't consider my experience to be as you describe it.
I am confused by your comments, but not for the reasons you're probably thinking.
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
To those of us who are Online Lodge participants, especially PbP lodge, limiting games to 6 makes sense to us.
The thing is that PBP is a distinctly unique and weird enough entity that you shouldn't be comparing yourselves to other forms of play.
am confused by your comments, but not for the reasons you're probably thinking.
It's because your giving out useless advice and it's kind of irritating.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If there are more than 6 game shops offering PFS that are close enough that you can regularly attend them, that’s an argument against needing 7-player tables. If a player is turned away, they have plenty of other opportunities over the course of a month (or even a week, it seems) to get into a game. In a smaller location where there’s only a game every other week, turning away the 7th player means that person might not get into a game for a month or more.
Being in a large area also means that you should have a larger GM pool, so forming a second table should be easier.
|
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
So I partake it that your in a relatively slow region that hosts a game once every other week? I don't mean that to be snarky but jeez we're a weird area.
I’m not entirely sure if you mean the Online region here, which is what Nefreet mentioned as having almost entirely 6 player tables but just for reference in case it helps we reported around 1000 games of PF1 and SF to our support program last year. That’s not counting any PF2 games at all, or the hundreds of con tables we reported as well. Plus there are (and some guesswork enters here but it’s from years of experience) hundreds more games GMs prefer to report to their own events. This is all just the online lodges, not even considering games people run online outside those and goes well over 2000 tables run last year (and looking like being vastly higher this year).
I explain this because we almost always limit tables to 6, always at cons and outside them we strongly encourage GMs to do the same. So we have a lot of experience with this, it works, both players and GMs have more fun. Games run to time a lot more, we have plenty of GMs who step up to help if there’s a preponderance of players, overall it’s a healthy change (and especially ensures that new players who are the lifeblood of the hobby get the best time possible).
Could we use more GMs? Always, I doubt there’s anywhere out there that’s not true at some point, but overall the move to 6 player tables is a net positive and brings a welcome change to games in my opinion and actual experience, I hope you find the same once things start to change locally for you. If you’re looking for extra players or GMs to help fill/run tables, you’re always welcome to ask on the Online region discord (here), we have a lot of people willing to help if they’re free!
|
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Please, please, Adam Yakaboski, do not pull one sentence out of the context of my post and apply in inappropriately to the larger argument, which my post was not even addressing.
No it's entirely appropriate. I'm trying to think of a tactful way of saying that suggesting playing with strangers misses the point of why people are complaining.
Also, technically speaking there are no rules for online play. What the RVC suggested is actively against PFS rules but it apparently it isn't????
|
|
No it's entirely appropriate.
No. It is not.
The larger argument of this thread is: implementing a 6-seat limit to go into effect in June was or was not a good decision.
My post did not weigh in on that debate.
My post discussed the mindset of several GMs in the Online Region and why two parties--one who frequents the Online Region--might not be communicating in the most effect terms with each other. My post, in fact, concedes that if you are taking your local group to a closed VTT or Zoom play, then you do, in fact, have the same issues you had before in a physical venue or maybe worse because fewer of your group may be comfortable GMing in a VTT.
I did, as an aside that you did not even cite, mention that a possible solution would be to open your VTT events to the larger online audience but only in the sense of addressing possible problems with having enough GMs willing to run sessions on VTTs. And I even acknowledged a large limitation of my own suggestion.
My post does not miss the point that some venues feel the need to run 7 player tables because it does not even aim in that direction.
However, you took the following line from its preceding and subsequent context:
To those of us who are Online Lodge participants, especially PbP lodge, limiting games to 6 makes sense to us.
Inserted it into the flow of the thread as though I was using my post to argue setting the table limit at 6 seats is the right way to go--which I made no assertions about one way or the other--so that you could then create a strawman out of it to tear down with your own counterargument (to the argument I wasn't making).
For the record, the point of my post was:
Regardless, it would help reduce confusion if, when discussing or mentioning "online" play that you clarify that you're talking about participating in the greater online region or talking about moving your local lodge play to a private online venue.
----------
What you did would be like me doing this:Also, technically speaking there are no rules for online play.
Of course there are rules. Suggesting that the Online Region is a rule-less free-for-all does a disservice to all of us participating in the Online Region.
...and that was a waste of my time.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please, please, Adam Yakaboski, do not pull one sentence out of the context of my post and apply in inappropriately to the larger argument, which my post was not even addressing.No it's entirely appropriate. I'm trying to think of a tactful way of saying that suggesting playing with strangers misses the point of why people are complaining.
Also, technically speaking there are no rules for online play. What the RVC suggested is actively against PFS rules but it apparently it isn't????
As I believe that I am the only RVC that has posted in this thread, exactly what was it that I suggested that was against PFS rules?
If I have erred my comments, I appreciate being corrected, but it would be helpful to know what it is that you believe I misspoke about.
Thank you.
|
Is this an issue where a group of 8 people, 1 GM and 7 Players, are now unable to play?
In Omaha, I will not allow a 7 person online table. Nor would I allow it for a face-to-face table. But we generally don't have this problem.
There has been a huge increase in online games. And to be honest, it has started me to stress a little.
PaizoCon is going to be interesting...
As for 7-players at a con, that happen to me once at GenCon last year. A group of 6 D&D players sat down at my 1-03 PFS2e table. 10 minutes in, a 7th friend showed up. I told them they would have to speak to a marshal and I told the marshal I didn't have a problem with the 7th player.
It was my funnest table of the con. Since none of them were Society players, I changed up the mission a little. They enjoyed the game and I think they purchased the CRB so they could play at home. And one of them actually took credit for the table!
Anyways, I think the limit is good. Leadership did not make this decision lightly.