Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 5818171" data-attributes="member: 20741">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.      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:[align=left]http://www.enworld.org/forum/attachments/general-rpg-discussion/51022d1329160908-crapification-organized-play-unavoidable-evidence.jpg[/align]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.        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.  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:   <ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Permitting a retroactive reconstruction of Society character to include new material (as does LFR);</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Permitting replay of any non-1st level scenario by the same player (as does LFR); and</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Relying upon  community members to create new campaign content (as does LFR)</li> </ul>   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? </blockquote>

Verification