|
So having played through part of the Godsmouth Heresy and hearing about a group playing Cult of the Ebon Destroyers (along with gearing up to run that in a couple weeks at a Con), I think GMing the module should count as having GM'ed 2 scenarios. Considering it takes 8-10 hours, I don't think that's unreasonable. I feel that since it takes a lot longer to prep for and run compared to your run-of-the-mill scenarios.
For instance, I'm running this at Dicehead Siege in Chattanooga. Anyone who signs up for it will need to sign up for all 3 slots it covers. So in the same amount of time, other GMs will have the opportunity to run 3 games for GM credit while I only get 1. Now, I don't expect the game to take up all 3 slots (I'm going to try my darndest to get it done in 2) and have a scenario prepped if there is enough time afterwards and my group wants to playing more PFS.
But, with that said, I do think it's not unreasonable to count GMing a module as 2 scenarios towards you star rating.
|
|
There's no REAL reason or need to change the credit system for the modules. Would it be nice? Sure. Worth the effort to change the reporting system? No.
I think the increase in time dedicated to prepping and running these marathons should be reason enough. And I doubt it would be THAT much of an effort to change since all it would take is a couple lines of codes for the database to recognize "Ah, GM gets 2 credits when such-and-such module is selected" (=2 instead of =1 :) ).
|
I think the increase in time dedicated to prepping and running these marathons should be reason enough. And I doubt it would be THAT much of an effort to change since all it would take is a couple lines of codes for the database to recognize "Ah, GM gets 2 credits when such-and-such module is selected" (=2 instead of =1 :) ).
Ugggh. Why are you putting programming logic inside your database? Boo. :P
Also, it is probably slightly more than non-trivial to create a system inside a system where that function presently does not exist (or all values are assumed to be 1).
|
|
Joseph,
Game-mastering a module earns you 3 xp and 4 PA. That's not too shabby.
If your goal is to get as much GM-credit towards "stars" as possible per hour of GMing, then I would recommend running scenarios rather than modules.
I know that, but I'm not too concerned about the XP and PA (I think that's more of a boon for a player than a GM). I just think if you HAVE to slot a scenario (Eyes of the Ten, Part I) or module for two slots at a game day or Con, GMs should get GM credit for running the equivalent of 2 scenarios.
It's not a make or break factor enough for me to not run modules. I just don't think for the amount of prep work and time to run that modules are giving due credit.
The 20 or so scenarios I've prepped and run took a lot more effort than just running the same scenario 20 times, but the star system doesn't account for that either. It just means I ignore the stars and either GM to give back to the groups I play with, or do it to kickstart a new character with GM credit.
I'm running Godsmouth this weekend, which will count as 1 mod for star purposes (inconsequential) but will get my new character up to 2nd level, which is much more interesting... :-)
If Paizo were considering changing the rules I'd prefer to receive GM credit more than once per scenario, as that gives me something I can use.
Developer
|
Joseph,
Game-mastering a module earns you 3 xp and 4 PA. That's not too shabby.
If your goal is to get as much GM-credit towards "stars" as possible per hour of GMing, then I would recommend running scenarios rather than modules.
Unless you hate applying credit to your PCs because it means you get to play them that much less. I see where Joe is coming from, too. I GM for the stars, not character advancement, and modules are a headache-and-a-half to run in any place but a home setting (and even then they can be troublesome)... and the advancement is hardly worth the effort GM-side.
I'm not saying they have to be worth more credit, but the idea isn't without merit.
Using GM credit is entirely voluntary, so I can't see why so many people object to it. For those of us who regularly play and GM for multiple groups it's extremely useful.
|
|
Ugggh. Why are you putting programming logic inside your database? Boo. :P
Also, it is probably slightly more than non-trivial to create a system inside a system where that function presently does not exist (or all values are assumed to be 1).
I'm not inputting programming logic into my database, I'm just taking the database and massaging the information I'd like to see from it! :)
I don't know, I think it would be very easy to do. I mean, it seems like the information (when reported on the form), keeps player information separate from GM information (hence why if you take GM XP you have to enter in the character you apply it to in the character reporting area). It seems like a no-brainer to me to set the value '=2' when the database sees you clicked on a module and adds that to your GM star score. But then again, I don't know how all that information is handled on Paizo's end (but I wish I did!).
/Back to being an Excel monkey.
//Still working on a Google Spreadsheet that will tell you for any given group of players who have accurately recorded information, what scenarios in what Tier range they have not played.
///I will then release it into the wild where it can be free.
|
Joseph,
Game-mastering a module earns you 3 xp and 4 PA. That's not too shabby.
If your goal is to get as much GM-credit towards "stars" as possible per hour of GMing, then I would recommend running scenarios rather than modules.
Interesting, this is what I had thought reading everything BUT as an event organizer I have just reported a Module and the poor DM only seems to get 2 PA. I think this may be a bug in the reporting system? I tried adding the DM's player as well as the DM but got an error stating the PC had already played the mod. There is no place to add PA to the DM as there is for the players either.
Could Paizo comment please - I'd like the GM to get full credit?
Many thanks
|
|
Interesting, this is what I had thought reading everything BUT as an event organizer I have just reported a Module and the poor DM only seems to get 2 PA. I think this may be a bug in the reporting system? I tried adding the DM's player as well as the DM but got an error stating the PC had already played the mod. There is no place to add PA to the DM as there is for the players either.
Could Paizo comment please - I'd like the GM to get full credit?
Many thanks
It is a kink in the design of the updated reporting system that was rolled out at the start of Season 3. While it is an important thing to fix, the Chronicle sheet is the ultimate record and trumps whatever is reported online.
|
|
It is a kink in the design of the updated reporting system that was rolled out at the start of Season 3. While it is an important thing to fix, the Chronicle sheet is the ultimate record and trumps whatever is reported online.
Many thanks for the quick response Joseph - I have informed the DM they do get 4 PA regardless of what the system says and we hope that will be corrected eventually.
Cheers
|
I'll add to the support for Joseph's suggestion having just been thinking about this myself today and deciding to do a quick search to see if it had already been suggested.
My version of the suggestion, however, would to be provide GMs with credit equal to the amount of XP the scenario/module is worth. This is just a more equitable system.
I hear the cost-benefit comments by Kyle and others, but this I feel is something that should go onto a todo list for the programmers. I think it would be a fairly simple modification to make when time permits.
And why is it important? Well, I organise a number of Cons and Game Days here in Sydney and I need to offer modules now to be able to continue to attract experienced players, many of whom are close to having played or GM'd all of the PFS scenarios. If a GM is incentivised to increase his GM star rating, she'll prefer to run scenarios over modules, when I might want her to run a module. If she runs the module, such as Feast of Ravenmoor which we're offering as a three-part series over three consecutive slots (that's 15 hours of straight GMing to entertain strangers), she'll get 1 credit in recognition. If she runs a PFS scenario in three slots, she gets 3 credits.
So, as I said, it's not a "drop everything and do this now" suggestion, but I think paying careful attention to how the incentives are structured will pay dividends in trying to increase the global scope of PFS Organized Play. While acknowledging the underlying "we do it for the love of the game" core driver, we also need to adopt the low-cost rewards and recognitions that social networking and the "gamification" of life are teaching us as are real incentives: namely online social status indicators and public recognition. We do it for the love of the game but we'd also like our contribution to be fairly acknowledged.
|
|
I hear the cost-benefit comments by Kyle and others, but this I feel is something that should go onto a todo list for the programmers. I think it would be a fairly simple modification to make when time permits.
Its on my request list of 40+ items (I made in Georgia a month ago)I have my attention focused on since being hired as Campaign Coordinator. Nothing promised on this one, though. But, I figure it never hurts to ask. :) Just assume it will remain the same, and if it ever changes, you can buy me a beer the next time I'm in your neck of the woods.
|
|
On Topic: Yay! I hope this changes!
// Start Thread Jack
Joe have you killed any more frog AC's yet? ;-)
You run a tight game sir!
// End thread jack
Off-Topic: I've been trying to plan on how to do so, but to answer your question nothing since Saturday. I've managed to kill that particular frog AC 3 times with different incarnations of ghouls. Unfortunately, Heresy II is the highest level module with something along those lines. Frogs should never aspire to be Venture-Captains.
/Just so you don't insult the frog next time, he believes he's actually the character and his druid is his human companion.
//This is why the frog must die.
|
|
Shouldn't you focus your energy on something else? Like complaining how hard it is to be a 5-star GM? >:)
This battle pre-dates how hard it is to be a 5-star GM! :P
/I'm all for making a requirement for how many PCs you have to kill!
//I'm going to out-Baird Kyle Baird, mark my words.
///I agree, gnomes should be eradicated for their unwarranted gnominess.
|
|
where's the list of modules ran = stars If that makes sense. I have 48 mods.
Mike
Page 29 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play, under the caption "Why do we bother writing this thing if no one ever reads it?"
"GMs can earn up to four stars for running (and
reporting) a certain number of games, as follows.
• 10 sessions reported as GM = 1 star
• 30 sessions reported as GM = 2 stars
• 60 sessions reported as GM = 3 stars
• 100 sessions reported as GM = 4 stars"
|
where's the list of modules ran = stars If that makes sense. I have 48 mods.
Mike
If you really mean modules (eg Godsmouth, Fallen Fortress, We Be Goblins, Crypt of the Everflame, etc) and not scenarios (eg 3-01 Frostfur Captives) then each module is 2 session credits and you are 2 modules away from being a 4 star GM.