|
Jester's Fraud and the Heresy of Man series are perhaps some of my favorite scenarios ever, even after running them over 4 months ago. A new group of PFS players has just reached the 5-9 tier at my local PFS lodge, and I was contemplating sharing these excellent scenarios with the new players, but actually found myself held back by the upcomming PaizoCon, as I have a level 5.2 character that I need to get to level 7.0 in a limited number of sessions in order to play in the 7-11 scenarios I want to at PaizoCon.
Granted, I understand why Paizo wants to incentivize GMs to run their new scenarios, but unfortunately my work has been really busy recently and I don't have time to run through and prep a brand-new scenario. Would it really hurt that much to give credit for running a scenario multiple times, as long as it was several months apart?
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the often overlooked problem isn't that any individual can't find something new to run, but that the GROUP can't find something new to run.
Well, there's that and there's the fact that not all scenarios fit all GM types. Some GMs don't enjoy GMming certain scenarios. Players would benefit much more if we ran things that we enjoyed - therefore, why force those of us who have GMmed the most to work our way through those last few 1-5s?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wild! It's almost like people want this!
|
|
Ah, I wasn't aware. A cursory search turned up nothing.
Even reading through those threads, I still don't see any reason why credit shouldn't be given for running multiple times; rather, several reasons were put forward why re-running scenarios is a good idea, yet re-running scenarios is currently decentivized due to a lack of tangible progression when doing so.
As is, I have 5 characters, 4 of which are mid-to-high level. Would it really have a negative impact if 2 of them had a GM chronicle from Jester's Fraud rather than just 1?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wild! It's almost like people want this!
I think in this case "no means no", not "Ask again in a few weeks and see if the answer will change."
|
So, can I just ask for clarification?
When you run a scenario the first time, you receive table credit and can apply the Chronicle sheet, 1 XP, 2 PP, and max gold to one of your characters (following the rules on pp. 39-40 of the Guide to PFS Organized Play).
When you run it a second time, you get the table credit but cannot apply the Chronicle sheet to any of your characters.
Do I have that right?
If so, I agree with SCPRedMage - there doesn't seem to be a strong argument for not allowing GMs to apply a Chronicle sheet to a character each time s/he GMs that scenario. People are going to GM the new scenarios regardless, I think, to feel active in the plots and intrigues of the current season.
|
|
Thanks, Don. I don't recall seeing this rule before, so I guess my eyes must keep skipping over it, wherever it is! And I'm a relatively new PFS GM so it hasn't come into play for me yet (but is about to, as I'm running 4-19 live tonight, and I'm also in the middle of running a PbF game of it).
I will say, though, that being at the intersection where I have to make the call about what to run, I do feel less motivated to re-run scenarios knowing this rule, even though in re-running I would value being able to improve on my first time through that scenario and would be able to give my players a better experience.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
There has to be a limit and that limit is 1 chronicle as a GM and 1 as a player.
Snipped sarcasm, since I'm not replying to it. It was funny though.
Yes, there should be a limit. And we as society members should honour that limit. But... That doesn't mean we can't question it, argue against it, and argue why we believe it should be changed.
It is akin to any of the banned items/classes/archtypes. I'd never have just shown up at a table with a wand using faerie dragon familiar. But I did argue that it should be allowed, with the boon of course, and eventually it became legal.
Then I showed up with my faerie dragon familiar :-)
|
That doesn't mean we can't question it, argue against it, and argue why we believe it should be changed.
The problem is that every time this topic is raised, the same handful of people jump on the thread to argue that the rules should be changed. There's never anything new discussed.
Personally I think the rules are fine as they are and shouldn't be changed; nobody in my gaming circles has ever mentioned this as something that's dissuading them from GMing.
My decision to GM something a 2nd (or 3rd, or 4th) time is based on how much I enjoyed it the first time, plus the demand from players, not on rewards. If the rules were changed to allow further GM chronicles, I would take them so I could create even more GM credit babies that would never get played...
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Paz: Maybe it's not been raised in your gaming group, but it has in mine, and it has also been raised by several people in another region which I have close ties to. Me, personally, I don't care that much about credit. I have a level 9, a level 8, 2 level 5s, a 3, a 2 and a 1. That's about perfect for me. However, it WOULD probably motivate some people. It would then be feasible for one GM to run the same scenario for everybody in a local gaming store over a series of alternating weeks. To me, that sounds like kind of a cool idea. Right now, event organizers are lax to do this because they don't want to ask people to rerun things.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Paz,
I have felt* personally attacked for commenting I'd rather run new scenarios for chronicle credit rather than re-run the old scenarios.
In fact, let's look at a comment from a recent post in another thread. "Considering how many of us shouldered that responsibility without complaint, it should lend some insight into the resistance toward expanding the already-generous rewards that GMs now reap. And as I write this I sense the futility of trying to explain the values of merit and service... "
Now I read that as "I did that without credit, so if you don't agree with me, then you're not a real GM who does it for the art!"
So let me see how this goes.
Reasoned argument: "I'd like to GM more, but I'm on a tight budget and my play time is limited. I wish I could run the scenarios I own over again for GM credit, because I've different characters they can apply to and I won't fall behind for when I do get to play, and not GM."
Greek Chorus replies:
"How DARE you want credit for replaying! In my day we bought the scenario, GMed it for no reward, and LIKED IT!"
"You're coddling your players. Stop GMing and make them step up. If the group collapses, you won't get to play or GM at all, but you'll have showed them!"
"We've talked about this before, no one gives a good alternative" (i.e. "One that I agree with.")
*
|
|
I think in this case "no means no", not "Ask again in a few weeks and see if the answer will change."Wild! It's almost like people want this!
Where was the "no"? I'm not being sarcastic--I've been traveling lately and if one was issued, I missed it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Matthew Morris:
I don't care too much either way on this particular issue; that's why I haven't commented on these threads (as far as I can tell) until earlier today. I was just making the point that the same people making the same arguments (on both sides) is not productive. In my experience, this is a non-issue outside these threads (although I concede that others will have differing experiences).
I think the biggest argument against increased GM credit is that it removes the current neat balance of 1 player chronicle and 1 GM chronicle per scenario. And if that becomes 1 player credit & many GM credit, people will start arguing for many player & many GM. And I think we can all agree that replay credit for players on scenarios is a route we don't want to go down (again).
|
Jester's Fraud and the Heresy of Man series are perhaps some of my favorite scenarios ever, even after running them over 4 months ago. A new group of PFS players has just reached the 5-9 tier at my local PFS lodge, and I was contemplating sharing these excellent scenarios with the new players, but actually found myself held back by the upcomming PaizoCon, as I have a level 5.2 character that I need to get to level 7.0 in a limited number of sessions in order to play in the 7-11 scenarios I want to at PaizoCon.
Granted, I understand why Paizo wants to incentivize GMs to run their new scenarios, but unfortunately my work has been really busy recently and I don't have time to run through and prep a brand-new scenario. Would it really hurt that much to give credit for running a scenario multiple times, as long as it was several months apart?
Sean while I cannot speak for others, I think one of the main reasons why there is no credit for GMing a scenario more then once is the fear of the "slippery slope".
There are allot of GMs etc who have experience in Living Grey Hawk and Living Raven's Bluff before that. I believe back then, and earlier in this living campaign, you didn't get any credit you could apply to your character for running a game. There was a point in time where you had to "eat" a scenario by running it. That meant, once you GMed it, you couldn't play it.
Things have progressed from allowing 1/2 credit and gold for GMing, to allowing full credit and gold, to now being able to pick a boon from the chronicle sheet as well. Thats a pretty good deal considering you used to have to eat a scenario. I think that might be the perspective of many of the more experienced organizers and GMs. But I may very well be wrong.
Now for the "slippery Slope" I have only played once or twice in the the Living Forgotten Realms campaign. While the GM and players were very friendly and extremely hospitable, I
was looking for any kind of game, and I soon got a lead on a PFS game which i joined.
I have read others on these message boards write that one of the main things that killed LFR was the unlimited replay for credit.
I think that people worry that to allow credit for every time you GM would be like "allowing the nose of the camel into the tent". The rest of the camel would soon follow. People would begin clamoring for replaying with credit.
I do think the current rules where you get two credits for a scenario, once for playing and once for GMing to be a good one. It is simple.
I also think allowing people at the table GM's discretion to replay for no credit to be a good rule as well.
The exception to these rules are the Tier 1 scenarios and modules. Those you can replay and GM for credit with a different 1st level character each time.
So there we are. I am sure there are plenty of other reasons which I haven't thought of for not allowing Gming multiple times for credit, but I haven't been able to think of others at the moment.
Sean I wish i could give you a better answer other then my own thoughts and conjecture.
I hope this helps, Myles
|
|
However, it WOULD probably motivate some people. It would then be feasible for one GM to run the same scenario for everybody in a local gaming store over a series of alternating weeks. To me, that sounds like kind of a cool idea. Right now, event organizers are lax to do this because they don't want to ask people to rerun things.
Are these people who are currently GMing something once and then never again, or are they not GMing at all?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that people worry that to allow credit for every time you GM would be like "allowing the nose of the camel into the tent". The rest of the camel would soon follow. People would begin clamoring for replaying with credit.
I do think the current rules where you get two credits for a scenario, once for playing and once for GMing to be a good one. It is simple.
Great minds think alike Myles!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have 2 characters at 12+, one at 11.2 (will reach 12 after Gen Con after playing Waking Rune) and another at 10 (likely to be 12 by the end of the summer).
Character #1: My first character ever, Bbauzh ap Aghauzh, is level 13.2 and of his 37 XP he has 13 GM credits. Not bad. Basically I have mostly played this character even though just over 1/3rd of his credits are GM credits.
Character #2: Clorrup Finglefingers, is level 12 and of his 33 XP he has 15 GM credits. One play credit was We Be Goblins, so didn’t really play this character. Another play credit before 6th level was a pregen credit, as I was supposed to GM, but the table didn’t go, and I hadn’t brought any characters with me. So basically I played him twice before 6th level. After 6th, only 4 GM credits. He is one of my most complicated builds, being an Alchemist (mindchemist) / Cavalier (luring cavalier) on an Axe Beak. Not something I would ever suggest not playing before level 6. Fortunately I had fun finishing out his career. Unfortunately he might get the GM credit for Eyes of the Ten when I run the series.
Character #3: Sssstryxsss is level 11.2 and of his 32 XP he has 19 GM credits. I had 1 play credit before level 5, but it was with a pregen. Again, showed up to GM a table, but another GM had taken the spot. I had not brought any characters, so chose to play a pregen and assign it to this character. 8 GM credits after level 5. Most likely his capstone scenario will be Waking Rune at Gen Con, where he will die a glorious permanent death. If he survives, I hope to play Ruby Phoenix Tournament with him, but most probably he will get any GM credit for 12+ modules or AP’s that I run. So his career as a play character is basically over.
Character #4: Vendel Naughton is level 10. Of his 27 XP, he has 6 play credits (21 GM credits). I had 1 play credit at 7th level that was a 7th level pregen as this character wasn’t high enough level to play the scenario being run, and I didn’t have any other characters in tier let alone sub-tier. Unfortunately this was a terrible experience playing Harsk (the session, scenario and GM were fine, Harsk sucks). So I’ve only actually played this character 5 times in 27 XP. I will likely assign at least 1 more level of GM credit to him, and he’s likely to hit level 12 before the summer is over. And I will probably only actually played HIM less than 10 times. That sucks, because this is a cool character.
Character #5: Phan Tam is level 5.2. Of her 14 XP she has 6 GM credits. I whipped up a 3rd level character in half an hour of GM credit to make a sub-tier 3-4 table in a 1-7 happen. I have vowed to only play her from here on out.
Character #’s 6 through 8 are either 2nd or 3rd level, and only one of them has a play credit before level 2. Otherwise these are all play characters.
Character #9 is almost 3rd level on all GM credit. This will be my new GM credit baby and probably be a sad sack like Vendel Naughton because it will be a really cool character that I never play.
Character #10 is 1st level with only one XP, a play credit. I created this guy to play First Steps. Since First Steps is going away, I will probably use 2 GM credit to get him/her to 2nd level, rebuild, and then have it be only a play character.
Character #11 was a level 7 Seoni death that I attributed to a new character number instead of having to resolve a death on an existing character.
So you guys tell me, at which point would I actually want to get credit for GM’ing a scenario a 2nd or 3rd or 4th or more times?
I have enough play opportunities left, I could get another 2 or 3 characters to level 12 just on what I can still play.
GM Credit is not all its cracked up to be, and asking for unlimited GM credit will just detract from your ability to actually play your characters.
|
|
Yeah, I'm only at 35 tables of credit, and I'm already unenthused about applying GM credit to my characters. All it means is that I lose the chance to play my beloved character for a mission. I can slow track, but that means careful negotiation of tables to remain in level tier of the players.
What I really think the campaign needs is some carrot and stick that says to the entire playerbase: 'Hey, you're experiencing Pathfinder Society, but you haven't REALLY experienced it until you've earnt your first star.'
Whether that something is a boon, a prestige that GMs get that players don't, or a stick to the teeth to experienced players who play constantly and never offer to GM, I don't know. All I know is that there seems to be a perpetual GM drought and everybody is highly reluctant to burn a new scenario.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think the biggest argument against increased GM credit is that it removes the current neat balance of 1 player chronicle and 1 GM chronicle per scenario. And if that becomes 1 player credit & many GM credit, people will start arguing for many player & many GM. And I think we can all agree that replay credit for players on scenarios is a route we don't want to go down (again).
Paz,
I understand the current system, and support it over the "one and none" system that predated it. I personally would like the replay bit because I beleive it would allow the community to be more friendly to the new players when they hear about the non-special-specials (i.e. sheets that have unique/unlockable items/boons/benefits.) a GM who is looking to build his own characters can benefit from it, while providing the opportunities to the newbies.
Frex, we've locally players who'd like to play First Steps before they go away.* Most of our experienced GMs are saying "sure, we can do that." Some of our newbies are stepping up and saying, "I can try..." Is that running first steps basically starts a PC on second level with GM credit a factor in repeat performances? I don't know. Does it really matter? We've players who want scenario X, GMs who want to run/rerun it, win win.
@Andrew
I agree that building GM credit characters can be blah. Mayim will stop being a blob of GM credit tomorrow, at mid 3rd level. I'd debated getting her to 5th level and making her an arcane dualist (so I could start with an adamantine Aldori dueling sword as a bonded weapon). But we've a low tier table Saturday, with new players, so I figure I'd 'fix' her to help support the newbies. For me, slow play is the answer if I want to play longer. (Ksenia made it to level 5, I'll be slow playing her for at least level 5 so I can enjoy what I call the 'sweet spot') But some people like to 'start' at higher level with GM blobs. To each their own.
*
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lazar,
30 years ago, if you called an insurance company and they needed to look up if a payment was received, they'd have to put you on hold while they walked down to accounts receivable and looked through a paper file. Today it's three keystrokes away.
Just because something worked one way in 'the old days' doesn't mean that it should be emulated.
|
|
Change should not be made for the sake of change.
The more GM credit we offer into the field of characters, the more we dilute the actual playability of those characters.
I had trouble adjusting to both my Alchemist/Cavalier I noted above. This was a very complicated build, and it took me a level or two to get the hang of the character. By 12th level, he was pretty impressive, but I had to learn how to play him when I should already have known. Because I did not organically grow with him and learn him as I gained the XP.
I also had a two or three scenario learning curve with Sssstryxsss, my Saurian Shaman Druid. He was 5th level before I played him.
The point being, the more GM credit you offer into the pool, the more likely you are going to be sitting at a table with someone who doesn't really understand their character, and thus the better chance of a character death (not necessarily theirs) or a TPK. This is actually worse than a newby with a level 7 pregen.
And all those clamoring for unlimited GM credit, do you really think you are going to have fun with your GM credit babies that you've hardly ever played? Great, you got a level 12 guy you've played 6 times. Isn't this character the Bomb? Sure it would be if I ever saw you play it. Vendel Naughton is proof positive of this for me. He's a very fun character to play, that has hardly every seen play. That sucks.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another thing to look at is this:
The only way multiple GM credits for the same scenario make any sense, is if you can apply more than one of the same chronicle to the same character. I am pretty positive that this will never happen.
And from what I'm reading above, we are only talking about 3 to 7 scenarios tops that someone would be re-running over and over again.
So now that you've run Mists of Mwangi, Voice in the Void, Penumbral Accords, Echoes of the Overwatched, and Blakross Matrimony 20 times each, you now have 20 2nd level characters with a future 3rd level credit.
Is that really all that enticing?
The only thing I see in the OP's original post, is that he wants to get his guy to 7th level so he can play him at Paizo Con in 2 weeks in the 7-11's he's signed up for. He needs 4 scenarios.
With work as crazy as it is, he doesn't have time to prep new scenarios.
So he wants a special dispensation to get GM credit a second time so that he can play this specific character at Paizo Con in the scenarios he's signed up for.
He wants it to be a new rule, for his immediate convenience, without looking at the long term ramifications for both himself and others.
If he really wants those 4 scenario credits, why can't he find another GM to run the 4 scenarios for him, instead of needing them to be GM credits?
|
complain, complain, complain...just be glad you get credit for judging it once, I say. Back in LG, you often had to "eat" a mod, because you could not get credit for playing a game after you had run it. you got no credit for judging it at all.
But of course, there were regional and metaregional adventures in those days, not just Core mods, which is basically what we have here in PFS. I'd love to see some regional and metaregional games done though...LG had a great base of authors and editors around the world, and I'm sure a lot of those play pathfinder. Plus we've got all this new blood...
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Yeah, I'm only at 35 tables of credit, and I'm already unenthused about applying GM credit to my characters.
There (or a little earlier) is where it kicked in for me, too.
At the last convention (which is where I ended up running five slots, getting me to 30 table credits), all of the tables I ran were ones that I had run before (although I did take credit on a new character for The Accursed Halls). Since then I've run three new scenarios (one on Free RPG Day). One chronicle was useful because it gave me a second character I could play in tier 5-9 adventures, but I wasn't sure about the others; I eventually ended up assigning one to the Thornkeep GM credit baby (I'll probably actually build and play the character at third level).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Change should not be made for the sake of change.
<rest of well reasoned argument snipped for a longer reply>
Nor should change be resisted because it's change. You do offer reasoned arguments, vs the "It's how we always did it!" I keep seeing.
(Yes, anyone who knows me is laughing their aft off right now).|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
complain, complain, complain...just be glad you get credit for judging it once, I say. Back in LG, you often had to "eat" a mod, because you could not get credit for playing a game after you had run it. you got no credit for judging it at all.
Blah blah blah Look it's another "In my day we walked up hill in the snow both ways to game!" argument.
|
|
Change should not be made for the sake of change.
<rest of well reasoned argument snipped for a longer reply>
Nor should change be resisted because it's change. You do offer reasoned arguments, vs the "It's how we always did it!" I keep seeing.
(Yes, anyone who knows me is laughing their aft off right now).
Agreed. But just because the change isn't being made, does not mean that the campaign staff is using that argument.
There may be other, hidden reasons, that none of us have thought of, that make unlimited GM credit a bad idea.
|
|
and just because we can change something doesn't mean we should.
In fact, continued change will eventurally result in a broken system. If we keep introducing changes into anything, at some point a change will brake the system... then you either try to back out the last change out and fix the mess, or move on.
Not to say this is what we are doing, but just offered as one reason many of us resist any change. We remember the changes that brake things we like... and don't want it to happen here.
But, but ... if we keep changing and adding things we'll eventually end up with the ... the .... ultimate ... ultimate ... [ULTIMATE CAMPAIGN]TM, right? ;-)
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@ Nosig
As to the 'all my characters have X of Y because I GMed it for each of 'em. MAybe I'm an optimist, I don't worry about it. Since Mayim is a blob of goo right now, she's going to be Lantern Lodge for exactly one session Saturday so I can use my GM credit from Way. If/When we have another GM run Way (I might be running it multiple times locally) I'll likely play Ksenia if it's the higher tier, or another PC if lower. Why? Because Ksenia griping about the weak tea, how her mother would never let an estate fall into repair, or any other "Irrisen is better" spiels is fun, and if the <redacted> uses its cold abilities, the chance to say (in character) "You call that cold? In Irrisen we play naked in that kind of cold. Infrigia!" is worth it. She's not Lantern Lodge and doesn't have <redacted> for her it's another "Travel with my fellow murder hobos to distant lands and see if there's anything worth shipping back home" scenario/
@Andrew
I freely admit there is more data than we have. (aside, think the NSA reads the Venture officer boards?) All we can do is debate the topic ad nauseam and present our feelings. Look at all the things that have changed (for the positive) because we have.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have enough play opportunities left, I could get another 2 or 3 characters to level 12 just on what I can still play.GM Credit is not all its cracked up to be, and asking for unlimited GM credit will just detract from your ability to actually play your characters.
At my lodge there is a shortage of GMs available. I would be willing to GM more, but I have a need to get a certain amount of credit in a limited timeframe, which actively disincentives me from GMing. In a system where GM availability is limited, is a system which further reduces this availability a good one?
The more GM credit we offer into the field of characters, the more we dilute the actual playability of those characters.I had trouble adjusting to both my Alchemist/Cavalier I noted above. This was a very complicated build, and it took me a level or two to get the hang of the character. By 12th level, he was pretty impressive, but I had to learn how to play him when I should already have known. Because I did not organically grow with him and learn him as I gained the XP.
I also had a two or three scenario learning curve with Sssstryxsss, my Saurian Shaman Druid. He was 5th level before I played him.
The point being, the more GM credit you offer into the pool, the more likely you are going to be sitting at a table with someone who doesn't really understand their character, and thus the better chance of a character death (not necessarily theirs) or a TPK. This is actually worse than a newby with a level 7 pregen.
Wouldn't allowing credit for rerunning scenarios actually help fix this very problem?
Lets say that you're GMing 9 times. If you run 9 different scenarios, all 9 scenarios are likely to go on a single character, giving you a 4th-level character you have never played. However, if you run 3 different scenarios 3 times, you will end up with 3 2nd-level characters that you have never played.
Re-run credit would actually push players to play their characters more than GM them, because they can't apply the same chronicle to a character twice.
There may be other, hidden reasons, that none of us have thought of, that make unlimited GM credit a bad idea.
This is true. There may be reasons we are yet unaware of which make allowing re-run credit a bad idea, but is it really worth it to shy away from a making a change which has clear, concise benefits of which we are aware, all because of a potential unknown?
Additionally, if we want to be cautious we can always roll out changes like this slowly. We certainly do not need unlimited GM credit. It would not be difficult to start off by only allowing 2 GM credits per scenario, just to see what impact it has on the game. If one of those potential unknowns does rear it's head and has a negative impact on the game, we can always roll back the changes.
So he wants a special dispensation to get GM credit a second time so that he can play this specific character at Paizo Con in the scenarios he's signed up for.He wants it to be a new rule, for his immediate convenience, without looking at the long term ramifications for both himself and others.
If he really wants those 4 scenario credits, why can't he find another GM to run the 4 scenarios for him, instead of needing them to be GM credits?
I apologize if my OP came off this way, but I did not intend to ask for special dispensation. I did not have my immediate convenience in mind when I made the OP, and I certainly didn't suggest this change without considering the long-term ramifications of Organized Play. I love Pathfinder Society, and would never suggest a change I felt would harm PFS as a whole, even if it benefited me personally.
Rather, I believe that allowing GM credit for re-running scenarios would have a positive impact on the society as a whole for all players, as the benefits we could gain would outweigh the of downsides of this change.
|
|
@ Sean H: I think in the short term, that allowing unlimited GM credits might incentivize some GM’s to GM more scenarios more than once. But to be honest, GM’s who refuse to GM something they haven’t played first, make qualifications for when or how they will grace you with their GM presence, refuse to GM something if they don’t get credit, et. al. will always find another reason they’d rather play than GM. And eventually you are going to end up with the same problem you’ve always had.
You have a few folks who are very willing to bite the bullet, serve the community, and GM whatever, whenever, however, etc. And its these people who, when they ask for a favor (hey, I’d really rather play this ONE scenario before I read it, anyone mind running it for me?) will usually get someone to step up and help them out. Those GM’s who have a more selfish outlook, often don’t get the help they seek.
Now I’m not saying you are a selfish GM. By all accounts, you seem to be one of those GM’s in service to the community. So please don’t think I’m lumping you in with the ungratefuls. But ask your community for a favor, to run 4 scenarios for you. If you can’t find someone to help you out in the next 2 weeks, then maybe the next time they ask you to run 27 scenarios for no or little credit, you say no thanks.
But opening up unlimited GM credits will create more problems than it solves.
Perhaps short term, we will have more players willing to GM more often, especially if it includes running something they’ve already run. That might not actually be a good thing. You are sacrificing long term sustainability for short term satisfaction.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The slippery slope, without demonstrating a causal connection between the proposed change and the stated consequences, is a logical fallacy.
The ad antiquitatem, or appeal to tradition (we've always done it this way), is also a logical fallacy.
Saying "we don't need this because I don't want it" is fine and good, but what people are asking for is the option to re-run for credit. It doesn't mean you'd have to apply it to a character. That's like me saying we shouldn't unban Magical Knack because I only play martial characters and don't need it.
I don't think anyone who is advocating re-run for credit is arguing for change for the sake of change. I don't think anyone has advocated multiple chronicle sheets for the same character. The arguments I have seen so far are:
- GMs should be rewarded for the time, effort, and resources they put into running a game, and not just the first time for a given scenario
- Offering re-run for credit would provide an incentive for people to GM more games, which would ease the problems many regions find with having enough GMs to seat tables
- Offering re-run for credit would encourage GMs to run the same scenario multiple times, which would allow them to get more comfortable with that scenario and provide a better experience for their tables.
Andrew's argument that bringing a GM-credit baby to a table represents a threat of TPK is interesting, but let me offer this counter-argument:
I just finished playing EotT a few weeks ago. One of our party had played 9 of the chronicle sheets for his character. The rest were GM credit. He was also playing a conjurer, which is (IMO) a particularly complicated class. He didn't slow down the table, and he didn't put us in danger. He was, in fact, remarkably well-prepared.
When you GM a lot, you play a lot of different classes. So you get experience using the unique mechanics of someone like an Alchemist or Inquisitor. You can get even more practice if you run those scenarios multiple times.
Maybe it's because I only came into the campaign two years ago, or maybe it's because I don't have the experience of the long history of 3.5 and its OP campaigns, but I find the recent influx of change to PFS exciting. Adding factions! Taking away factions! Changing how faction missions are done! Adding back useful traits! Removing problematic archetypes and items!
I love that this is a dynamic, breathing campaign that adjusts and responds to the growth of the community. If they keep the chronicles to 1 played/1 GMed I will be disappointed, because I think it's a good change to make, but I will not complain.
I just want to see the best arguments possible on either side to maintain a productive dialogue.
|
|
I don't really see any strong arguments for or against it. It simply is.
Andrew makes good points, but we already have that choice between GM crediting a character versus waiting to play the character instead. Letting a GM have all his GM credits be the same scenario might allow him to play more varied scenarios when he does play it, but every GM credit is a game he doesn't get to play. Not to mention he limts himself to just the boons of that singular chronicle.
Keep in mind, I've run Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment four times and am scheduled at PaizoCon for 3 sessions of The Disappeared and one In Wrath's Shadow, both of which I have already ran.
|
|
The problem redward is this:
If you have GM's who aren't willing to GM a 2nd or more times unless they get credit, eventually they will get bored with the extra credit they are getting, because they still don't get to play their character.
Or if its just a few scenarios they are running over and over, they will have a bunch of 1st or 2nd level characters with all the same credits.
How many 1st or 2nd level characters does one actually need?
So after their 20th 2nd level character, they have no incentive to run those 10 scenarios over again.
Its a short term solution to a long term problem. And once the short term satisfaction has run its course, the long term sustainability is still an issue.
The issue isn't the lack of unlimited credit.
The issue is that we don't engender community in our players like we aught.
Eric Brittain V-C of San Diego has a great speech he gives to his community. Maybe he will poke his head in hear and share it again.
|
|
Letting a GM have all his GM credits be the same scenario might allow him to play more varied scenarios when he does play it, but every GM credit is a game he doesn't get to play. Not to mention he limts himself to just the boons of that singular chronicle.
Which is exactly why its a short term solution with no sustainability.
Eventually the GM will get tired of having the same credits over and over and having 20 characters with the same 3 or 5 credits each.
Sure, leave it up to them whether they take it or not. But if taking unlimited GM credit is actually such a great incentive, then the above problem wouldn't exist. Yet it does.
You have GM's who are getting tired of applying GM credit with the system the way it is.
Why would applying each scenario unlimited times actually help any, long term?