Why is it supposedly heavily discouraged? If some people want to play but the only stuff going on is adventures that they've already played and are not replayable and don't want to pay boons to replay again or maybe don't the points and the table has room, then why not? Isn't it less work for the GM after the game if they don't have to fill out more sheets for chronicles or whatever? Was my local Venture Captain mistaken on it being heavily discouraged?
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As per the Lorespire:
Replaying for no credit: This is only allowed if the alternative is for the table not to play. Players must record any items or resources expended and can be given a blank Chronicle for this purpose. This is an exception to the rule that you cannot assign more than one copy of a single adventure's Chronicle to a given character.
So it's not that it's discouraged, it's simply not allowed unless there is absolutely no other option and the table would otherwise be cancelled.
That's not what my local PFS is saying. They said its to avoid stuff like metagaming by someone whose already played the adventure or taking a seat from someone who hasn't played. Thing is that can already be done, you just have to pay for a replay.
As per the Lorespire:
Replaying for no credit: This is only allowed if the alternative is for the table not to play. Players must record any items or resources expended and can be given a blank Chronicle for this purpose. This is an exception to the rule that you cannot assign more than one copy of a single adventure's Chronicle to a given character.So it's not that it's discouraged, it's simply not allowed unless there is absolutely no other option and the table would otherwise be cancelled.
There's definitely been quite a few games canceled because too few players and nobody wanted to play something they already played and have to pay for it with boon points.
|
|
There's definitely been quite a few games canceled because too few players and nobody wanted to play something they already played and have to pay for it with boon points.As per the Lorespire:
Replaying for no credit: This is only allowed if the alternative is for the table not to play. Players must record any items or resources expended and can be given a blank Chronicle for this purpose. This is an exception to the rule that you cannot assign more than one copy of a single adventure's Chronicle to a given character.So it's not that it's discouraged, it's simply not allowed unless there is absolutely no other option and the table would otherwise be cancelled.
Calling in reserve players to play for no credit at last minute is... awkward. It exists in theory, but in practice, unless you're at a Convention you probably don't have enough time to get people. I guess if you knew some people wanted to play an adventure that probably wouldn't get enough eligible players to go off normally you could put out a call for people to backfill a table in advance, but predicting that will happen is tricky.
But Starfinder has free replays for all though?
I'm also running into problems with GMs running games I've already played that aren't replayable and the table also doesn't have enough players. So yeah, I actually would be needed to play to keep the game going. We aren't "calling in" people like one person suggested.
|
Venture-Agent, Netherlands—Leiden
|
OPM seems to be experimenting new things with SFS Second Edition: If the "all replayable" approach works well, who knows maybe they'll introduce it for PFS2 as well in the future. But for now, we have to make it work like this.
To be honest, if the scheduling of scenarios is a structural issue in your lodge, consider having it use the PFS Tracker to track what people have played: This should help GMs pick scenarios that everyone can play.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really like that all Starfinder 2 scenarios are repeatable. I've already repeated 3 of them. The last one I repeated, another GM had to cancel on short notice, and being able to run a scenario I had already run made it easy to fill in on short notice. Because it was on short notices one of the players had also played it before. So being repeatable helped both sides of the table.
|
|
You can't play for no credit as the fourth player at a 1-4 table, for example, because the table could continue without you by adding a pregen.
I feel like an exception to that rule would be good for situations where an experienced player dropped out of another game to play a pregen to help a GM with a table of all new players. Having new players play multiple pregens can be overwhelming, and having at least one experienced player at the table can help the GM out when teaching new players. This is a common occurrence at our lodge.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instead of telling you "these are the rules" which you've already heard, let me try to explain what I think is the "why". (This is just what I believe; I wasn't there originally when it was first conceived.)
PFS grew out of Living Greyhawk which existed from around 2000 to 2008, and was probably based off earlier living campaigns. People definitely thought a bit differently about gaming back then, and LG had quite strict rules about replaying. I think it was very much rooted in a sort of "sports" kinda attitude, that once you've played a scenario you know what's going on and if you did it again you'd have an unfair advantage. In LG I believe you weren't allowed to play a scenario after having GMed it, so often people had to do some complex coordination to make sure they got to play, GM for people, then those people could GM, and so on.
PFS has over the years gradually loosened those rules, introducing a few replayable scenarios in PFS1, and a lot more in PFS2. I remember back in PFS1 days there was a very strong suspicion of replayable scenarios both from GMs but definitely also from Paizo. There was a big concern that it would cheapen the gaming experience. I guess times change, and the constant pressure of people being unhappy with not having scenarios to play also had an influence. PFS2 had a lot more replayable scenarios, as well as replayable bounties and quests.
With SFS2, everything is replayable by default AND you can start at level 1,3,5 or 7 as you like. So it's a very long way away from those LG days where it was like "no, a high level character is something you really need to EARN".
---
Where does (re)playing for no credit fit in?
The rules don't actually handle non-replay for no credit. Sure, it does happen sometimes - someone shows up, gets a pregen, plays a session, but isn't long term interested in PFS and nobody needs to go through the rigmarole of setting up an account to report one game ever.
But there's "replaying for no credit", which basically means there's a table with not enough characters, and instead of a pregen, you bring a PC. Maybe your PC is better designed than the pregen, maybe you just like your PC more. You can't earn any gold or XP, but your character can lose money and get hurt and die. It's not a great deal.
But I think the reason behind it is that Paizo doesn't want some of the players to have something at stake, and others nothing at stake. If you're playing without taking credit, what happens if your character gets killed? Do you say "well if I don't get paid I also can't die?" What if there's a fight that's going badly, do you fight the rearguard action so the rest of the party can run away, because hey if you die it doesn't matter?
---
I'm not saying these somewhat abusive feeling things really happen in practice. Maybe they did, here and there, but I've never seen it. However, I do feel part of the draw of PFS (RPGs in general) is that as a group you decide on some game rules and all play by them - play well and you advance.
If some people start saying "meh, I don't want credit, I don't want to do bookkeeping" that's one thing. But then if a couple weeks later there's some higher level scenarios, are they gonna come up with "well, I never got any XP, but here's my level 9 character" how does that work with the other players who had to "work" to get to level 9 the regular way?
So I think your VC was correct in strongly discouraging. Playing the occasional pick-up game with no bureaucracy afterward is a perfectly good way to have fun. But it chafes a bit with what Organized Play tries to do with having rules for leveling up your character from session to session and playing with lots of people all using the same rules.
---
Oh, also, doing things like a module or AP where only some of the players are interested in getting a chronicle afterward, that's totally fine, that doesn't really cause any friction with the organized play system.
|
I have seen Paizo Organized Play staff comment a few times that the biggest issue they have with replay is with character involvement. While it's relatively easy for a replayer to be conscientious in combat (by not preparing the one rarely used spell that ends an encounter, or by not buying the weird weapon the BBEG is weak against), it's a lot harder outside of combat.
The issue (and I have seen and felt it many times myself) is that outside of combat there's very little middle ground between "doing what the scenario writer is looking for" and "keeping your mouth shut and not participating." I know there's treasure under that flagstone and none of my party members found it. Would my character have searched there? Would he really, or am I just trying to justify it? If I don't search now but might have if I was playing for the first time am I hurting everyone else at the table? If one NPC reacts very favorably to a specific line of conversation (and I know this) is it fair for me to bring it up if no one else does? And don't get me started on puzzles.
So it's more about hurting the experience of the other players than about breaking a power curve.
But Starfinder society is allowing replays for everyone so what's the logic in that? There's also replayable scenarios in PFS 2E where it can be mixed up so it might actually be different from the one a person played. Maybe that flagstone doesn't have treasure under it in this adventure. Or you fight a different villain, and they are found in a different place. There's one scenario set in Tian Xia in the forest of spirits and it has different outcomes, different villians and different locations.
|
|
But Starfinder society is allowing replays for everyone so what's the logic in that? There's also replayable scenarios in PFS 2E where it can be mixed up so it might actually be different from the one a person played. Maybe that flagstone doesn't have treasure under it in this adventure. Or you fight a different villain, and they are found in a different place. There's one scenario set in Tian Xia in the forest of spirits and it has different outcomes, different villians and different locations.
I can't speak to SFS (haven't played SFS2e). For PFS, the difference is that those scenarios are designed to be replayable by introducing a variable component.
Could all scenarios be designed with variable pieces? Sure. But it's more work. Especially on the social/conversation side of things. And I think if you took a poll people would say that the ones that aren't variable tend to tell a better story. (That's my vote.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I can't speak to SFS (haven't played SFS2e). For PFS, the difference is that those scenarios are designed to be replayable by introducing a variable component.
In SFS the scenarios do NOT have written variable components.
However, the SFS GM has more leeway than the PFS GM to alter things in the scenario, including difficulty level. They're not supposed to alter key aspects of the scenario but they can add flavour encounters if they want.
I've played almost all the SFS scenarios twice and there can be considerable variation from one run to the other.
|
|
I can't speak to SFS (haven't played SFS2e). For PFS, the difference is that those scenarios are designed to be replayable by introducing a variable component.In SFS the scenarios do NOT have written variable components.
However, the SFS GM has more leeway than the PFS GM to alter things in the scenario, including difficulty level. They're not supposed to alter key aspects of the scenario but they can add flavour encounters if they want.
I've played almost all the SFS scenarios twice and there can be considerable variation from one run to the other.
One reason I think it's easy (or sometimes needed) to add flavor encounters to the new SF2e scenarios is that they are only 2 to 3 hours long, so there's session time for it if you want to try to run them longer. I've gotten a few scenarios up to 4.5 hours. I feel most SFS2 scenarios I've run so far (all the non-meta plot ones) usually have some part or NPC that invites being expanded.