The Crapification of Organized Play - Unavoidable?

[fletch137]

2. Allow the PH, but consider everything else restricted until a certain level is reached and the character is eligible to join an organization, faction, etc. In LG, we had Metaorgs in which certains feats and spells were only available if you were a member of that organization.

I miss metaorgs.

My early days in LG was some of the finest organized play campaigning I've ever had. I really enjoyed the feeling of accomplishment when I'd receive a particular magic item cert or unlock new abilities or advance in a metaorg. Living Arcanis was similar in that it treated much of its additional rule content as rewards rather than base assumptions. Not sure why that style of Organized Play isn't in favor any more, 'cause it was my favorite part.

 

[kitsune9]

I miss metaorgs.

Dude, I just miss LG altogether. I loved collecting ARs, racking up favors, gain access to restricted stuff, buy in a cool magic item if I got one coming my way, metaorgs, playing above APL, and taking on Core Mods which usually were nasty tough modules to survive.

I thought 3.5 LG was probably my sweet spot for tournament play. I didn't get a chance to play LA, but I did like that they didn't have nearly as much banned stuff that LG did, but at least LG was concilitory in that you could possible get around the restriction through the metaorg, certs, or ARs.

 

[OnlineDM]

Hm. My experience with organized play in the two years I've been involved has been really positive. Now granted, that's a small sample size both in time and location (most of that play has been at my FLGS, with some at local conventions and a little at GenCon last year), but it's been fun.

It does depend greatly on the DMs and the players; organized play is open enough that lousy people can wreck others' fun. I've seen that once or twice, but not so much with broken characters as with people just being jerks. But that's the exception rather than the rule.

I'll also say that I'm much more frequently the DM instead of the player now, and I feel very empowered to change things up in the adventures I'm running. Since I use my MapTool framework with a projector to run games, it's easy for me to update monsters to post-Monster Manual 3 damage expressions. I tweak monster abilities as I see fit. I completely rejigger skill challenges (I condensed three separate challenges into one in an LFR game I ran this past Saturday). I act as a good DM should, and as DMs are empowered to do under the LFR rules.

Result: We have fun!

 

[Steel_Wind]

You know and I know that gamers shouldn't *have* to show self restraint at the gaming table. They should be allowed to explore and expand their characters as they see fit.

On this point we both agree. However, self-restraint is a powerful factor in play at most PFS venues and can (and often does) impact upon whether or not something which is theoretically broken actually manifests as broken during play. In my experience, the large majority of players will talk about it but actually won’t act on it. As a consequence, the evidence necessary to show that there is a real play balance problem at the table raarely manifests in the precise way you believe it should. Which leads me to the discussion below.

As you said, the Synthesist hasn't ruined any of your games. Good for you....but that's an awful answer, both by me and by you...

There are no necessary sessions to cite, no names to name. What is the issue is whether the crapification is avoidable, and what the campaign administration can do to avoid it.

No, it isn’t. In my opinion, my response was a rather AWESOME answer and that is our point of departure.

What’s the operating theory at work here? It’s pretty simple and non-ideological in approach. It’s LOGICAL & RATIONAL and it is summarized by this unlikely protest poster:

What do we want? Evidence-based change!
When do we want it? After Peer Review!

You see, it becomes impossible to meaningfully respond to a post of your kind when you move the goal posts during the discussion. You start in your original post by setting out a theory that X causes Y.

The problem is, when asked to back up that theory concerning the Synthesist, you can’t point me to even a single instance of it rearing its head in an actual game session. Yet I’m supposed to respond with a prescription to alleviate a “problem” that you can’t even substantiate is, in fact, an actual problem at all.

Framing the debate in that way, I’m not allowed to challenge your theory in any manner or even to merely accept the possibility of its truth and then ask in good faith for evidence of it in support. No, instead, I’m supposed to address not your theory – but to deem your statements as unquestionable conclusions of fact in the absence of any evidence at all.

That’s not a reasonable point of view to take concerning any matter on Planet Earth. Full Stop.

The reason it matters is because Mike Brock, Paizo’s new Co-ordinator of PFS was a Venture Captain for many years and treats significant play balance issues at the table very seriously. If there are a significant number of Venture-Captains who will confirm play balance complaints with specific examples, confirming that the problem is manifesting repeatedly at tables in their respective zones, Brock will be motivated to take action and will address the issue in a way that seems best at the time.

HOWEVER, what Paizo does not do is act on hunches dressed up as ironclad conclusions that only suppose there is reams of evidence in support of the position – but which when pressed, cannot cite a single instance in support of the claim.

Paizo operates on the basis of evidence which has been validated by a number of other VC’s. Call that peer review, if you will. When Paizo has that to go on – it generally acts. When it does not, it generally does not.

If the Summoner (Synthesist Archetype) is in fact as bad as you say it is, we’ve had nearly 10 months since that class has been legal at the table. If the problem was as bad as you suggest, it is very likely (though not certain because of the self-restraint factor) that we would have seen evidence of that by now. The fact that we have not indicates to me that the problem isn’t as bad as you suggest and that in this specific instance, you are jumping at shadows.

Paizo responds to real evidence, which has been tested and confirmed across North America in actual game sessions. Paizo does not respond to mere conjecture. That is, in my opinion, a wise and reasonable policy.

In addition, the ability of judges to scale encounters limits their ability to 'compete'. I know this is a losing fight in the long run...one that will begin to eat away at PFS's growth.

Ah. “Eating away at growth”. You see, that’s a statement which you have cleverly framed so that it is impossible to prove or disprove. And you know it, too.

If the inability to scale encounters was a problem which threatens to jeopardize the entirety of the organized play campaign, then that problem should have been evident since the very beginning of PFS three and a half years from now and it should have crippled the entire PFS program by now. But we are three-and-a-half years in and the PFS campaign continues to grow at a steady rate with 50,000-60,000+ players.

Your conclusion would suggest that we should be seeing some unknown but even LARGER number, say, 100,000+ players right now. Indeed, you suggest it is only the inability to scale encounters which prevents these preferred player totals from being achieved.

It’s an impossible statement to prove; and an impossible statement to gainsay, too. How then am I to react to such an allegation? Once more, I have to jump at shadows.

Would I prefer there were additional tools at a GM’s disposal to scale the difficulty of a scenario depending on the number of PCs playing (increase difficulty when players are increased from 4 to 6, say). Yes I would. My guess is that you already know this as I have posted on it before on the Paizo Message boards.

Is this something that is going to show up at one of our PFS tables if you attend for play at a store on convention? Maybe. It is definitely true that the challenge level in a scenario is very different for four players than it is for six (or god forbid, seven). Ideally, organizers address this by adding more tables on the spot and balance out the players to that there are four on each; however, this can’t happen in some cases because there simply aren’t enough players present to do it – or more often, aren’t enough GMs to do it even if we wanted to.

Would I prefer that there was an across the board mechanic put in place to deal with this? Yes I would. Whether that is coming in the future or not remains to be seen.

However, if the worst thing that happens is that this has only retarded our growth levels (which are already extremely high), then the cost of NOT addressing it in an arbitrary fashion is nowhere near as dire as you suggest or predict.

Yeah, Steel Wind...but is there a way for PFS to realize that they are following the path of LFR? Is there any chance that Paizo is going to show intelligent restraint with their products?

Once more, I am left to respond to theories dressed up as conclusions in the absence of evidence. If there is evidence of imbalance which confirms this to be a big problem generally, Paizo will probably respond. But what Paizo won’t do is jump at shadows – or change the underlying nature of the PFS Organized Play program based upon a post, however impassioned and well intentioned.

Paizo will respond to evidence, not passion nor invective. I can’t put it any more clearly than that.

What Paizo is NOT doing is:

• Permitting a retroactive reconstruction of Society character to include new material (as does LFR);
• Permitting replay of any non-1st level scenario by the same player (as does LFR); and
• Relying upon community members to create new campaign content (as does LFR)

Pathfinder Society is an important part of Paizo’s overall marketing strategy for the Pathfinder RPG. Paizo pays two full-time staff in connection with it – one as a full-time developer for all scenario and modules and another Co-ordinator whose only job is to mange Paizo’s Venture Captains and PFS player community and to travel to stores and conventions across North America to meet with payers and volunteers in order to keep in touch with that region’s problems, demands and expectations.

And of course, Paizo puts on Pathfinder Society at Gencon. The space devoted to PFS play is essentially doubling this year in response to strong player interest. All spots at last year’s PFS tables at Gencon were sold out prior to the opening of Gencon. While there are about 25% more table spaces being added this year, Paizo expects that to sell out, too. (The space is doubling, but the tables are increasing only by 25% or so. The considerable COST of doubling the play space is being directed at ensuring there is more space between tables so that players and GMs can hear each other better).

No Organized Play campaign is perfect and PFS can and will continue to respond to players and GMs and improve.

But I do ask you this: if “crapfication” was actual, real, and as deep a threat to the campaign as you posit that it is, why does PFS keep growing? It might be that LFR and D&D Encounters are contracting (I don’t know for a FACT that either is, but it may well be true) – but even if LFR is taking that hit, I can assure you that PFS is not.

Could it be that you are wrongly tarring PFS with the same brush?

 

[yoda8myhead]

Everyone has a different definition of what makes a campaign good or bad. In the case of the OP, that seems to hinge on the amount of rules made legal in the campaign, and that's fair. But Pathfinder Society is growing at an exponential rate, and much of that growth is likely due to people who want to play a ninja or magus or even a synthestist-archetype summoner having the ability to do so.

We at Paizo put tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of man-hours into every book we produce. Restricting those options from the largest body of players doesn't make a lot of sense from a business perspective, and we'll continue to make as much content available for those who want to use it as we can without sacrificing the flavor of the campaign.

As to how we plan to avoid the "mistakes" of other organized play programs, our editorial department includes former administrators of three different iterations of Wizards of the Coast's comparable programs (Living City, Living Greyhawk, and Living Forgotten Realms/Encounters) and we don't shy away from discussing what worked and didn't work in those campaigns. What some may view as mistakes, however, we see as simply different decisions, and clearly decisions we make can be viewed as mistakes just as easily as those made by other game companies.

Organized play isn't for everyone, and if a player prefers a more rigid grasp on what is and isn't possible to encounter at his or her table, it likely isn't the environment for that player. But we have a thriving message board community on paizo.com and Campaign Coordinator Mike Brock and I read every post on threads therein. So if the OP really feels any decision we have made signals the death knell of the campaign, by all means, raise that issue on the Paizo message boards and we'll gladly host a conversation on it where we can see the path the discussion takes much easier than we can on ENworld.

 

[Oryan77]

I'm not that familiar with organized play.

Can someone briefly tell me what is different between a "judge" in organized play and what a DM does in a home game?

 

[Steel_Wind]

I'm not that familiar with organized play.

Can someone briefly tell me what is different between a "judge" in organized play and what a DM does in a home game?

There is little practical difference. The use of the term "judge" is mostly a regional thing in the USA and non-game specific term. It isn't meant to signify a different role, just a different nickname. I've seen it used to refer to D&D DMs too. Long history of this back to the 70s for that matter -- hence the company name "Judge's Guild".

From a broader perspective, in most OP programs, the DM/GM is strongly discouraged from altering the scenario or applying the rules other than as per RAW. While this can cause some theoretical differences, in practice, the sessions unfold exactly as they would in a home game. It is only in extreme circumstances that you tend to see any difference in practice.

Gamers, being gamers, tend to focus on the theoretical extremes rather than the practical eFfects of a rule.

 

[pauljathome]

From a broader perspective, in most OP programs, the DM/GM is strongly discouraged from altering the scenario or applying the rules other than as per RAW. While this can cause some theoretical differences, in practice, the sessions unfold exactly as they would in a home game. It is only in extreme circumstances that you tend to see any difference in practice.

Gamers, being gamers, tend to focus on the theoretical extremes rather than the practical eFfects of a rule.

There are some other differences.

Organized play often has reasonably tight time constraints. Which means that the GM has to make sure that the characters "stay on target" to a somewhat greater extent than normal. When I'm running a home game I'll often let the players go off on the wildest of tangents as long as they're having fun. But in organized play I have to bring them back on track quicker.

In addition, in home play I know the characters that will be going through the module. So I can tailor things to individual characters and I can modify things to fit the specific strengths and weaknesses of the characters. I especially can add in particularly interesting and directed role playing opportunities. In organized play I have less ability to do that since I don't know the characters until after play has started and know less about them.

At least in PFS and LFR, the normal lethality level isn't all that high in general (although there are definitely exceptions). Its fairly rare for a character to die unless the player makes a mistake. As the OP stated, this lower lethality increases when there are more than 4 players or some characters are on the high end of the level range.

 

[Oryan77]

Huh, I guess I should go read up on organized play. Cause I'm not really seeing why someone would complain about that in particular as if it is so much different than a DM just running the same adventure at home.

It seems like anything that applies to organized playing would apply just the same for any other home game. Other than the fact that you're playing with players and characters you aren't familiar with. I sure a publishing company has the exact same intent on OP players buying their products as they do home players buying their products.

 

[KidSnide]

I'm going to show my age here and say that WotC ruined organized play when they started Living Greyhawk in 2000. Before that, you had tournament play with premade characters build for the module.

It was great. You got to play in highly themed parties that you wouldn't get in a home campaign (an afternoon of all pirates, all barbarians, all halflings or all whatever) and, with disposable characters, players focused on the role-playing aspects of the game instead of the character advancing aspects of the game. Just as importantly, because the characters were built with the module, you got to play an adventure that was actually about the PCs.

Plus, it was an advancement tournament, so once you got past the first round, the other advancing players were really, really, fun.

Sigh...

I miss those days.

-KS