|
Confirm please....
When you DM a Scenario you can apply DM-Credit to any of your PFS PCs that does not already have credit, player or DM, for that Scenario.
When you Play a Scenario you can only play one you have NOT DMed or played UNLESS you must in order to create a "legal" table to allow the "play, play, play" rule. In these (RARE) cases, you can still only play a PFS PC that does NOT already have that Scenario's credit.
Finally, if you must play through a Scenario you've DMed or played (in order to make a legal table for "play, play, play") but none of your PFS PCs who haven't played that Scenario are appropriate level, you play a level-appropriate PreGen and when another of your PFS PCs reaches the appropriate level, you can apply the credit from this PreGen to your real PFS PC. (This seems like it may not be the protocol.)
Thanks.
|
The first one is right.
The second one is wrong. You can play anything you haven't played before, even if you have run it before. This information is detailed in the Guide to Organized Play.
Also, FYI, "DM" is apparently trademarked or copyrighted or whatever by WotC, so for Pathfinder we must use "GM." Or so they tell me. (But they might be lying.)
|
Finally, if you must play through a Scenario you've DMed or played (in order to make a legal table for "play, play, play") but none of your PFS PCs who haven't played that Scenario are appropriate level, you play a level-appropriate PreGen and when another of your PFS PCs reaches the appropriate level, you can apply the credit from this PreGen to your real PFS PC. (This seems like it may not be the protocol.)
If you've already played and GMed a scenario, it doesn't matter if you use a pregen or not, you won't get any xp/pp/gp for playing it again (unless you utilize the new rules for GM stars and replays).
Also, pregen credit can either be saved for when your PC is that level, OR it can be applied to a level 1 PC by reducing the gold gained to 500gp.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
You can get credit for each scenario/module/AP once as a player, and once as a GM. The credits can't be applied to the same character.
You can use a GM star replay to gain a second chronicle while playing or GMing. You get one replay per star. There is a possibility that down the road the replays will be allowed to refresh each year, but they are currently once in a lifetime use.
|
|
So, once one of your PCs has played through a Scenario you can't get credit for that Scenario in the future for another PC if you're DMing the Scenario?!?
So if my PFS PC#-1 plays through Scenario #29 (for example), then, a few years down the road, I'm asked to DM a Scenario -- and since the Event is filled with gamers who've played lots of Season 3, 4, & 5 Scenarios but not so much from Seasons 0 or 1 -- AND I remember how much fun Scenario #1 was when I played through it a few years ago and even has three sequels from Season 1 so I could continue to run the series -- and thus choose to DM Scenario #29 -- I DON'T GET CREDIT FOR IT to apply to my PC#-2?!?
If that's how it works, that's ridiculous.
|
Please stop calling us DM's, we are not DM's, that is for Dungeons and Dragons, of which Wizards has a trademark on. We all play Pathfinder here, so we are GM's.
Your assessment is incorrect you get credit 1 time for playing and 1 time for GMing. So basically, as Eric, you can get credit 2 times, but on different characters.. If you have GM stars you can use those to get credit for an additional scenario at one per star. You still get GM credit towards GM stars. It used to be that if you ran something before you played it you could not get credit for playing. There are several scenarios where you can get credit for GMing and playing multiple times. The Confirmation, Intro Steps, any level 1 module.
It also seems like you have a very old copy of the guide. I would suggest downloading a current version.
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
You can get credit for each scenario/module/AP once as a player, and once as a GM. The credits can't be applied to the same character.
Re-read this. "Once as a player and Once as a GM."
If you play something and later GM it, you get credit both times. The credit just can't go to the same character.
|
|
So, once one of your PCs has played through a Scenario you can't get credit for that Scenario in the future for another PC if you're DMing the Scenario?!?
So if my PFS PC#-1 plays through Scenario #29 (for example), then, a few years down the road, I'm asked to DM a Scenario -- and since the Event is filled with gamers who've played lots of Season 3, 4, & 5 Scenarios but not so much from Seasons 0 or 1 -- AND I remember how much fun Scenario #1 was when I played through it a few years ago and even has three sequels from Season 1 so I could continue to run the series -- and thus choose to DM Scenario #29 -- I DON'T GET CREDIT FOR IT to apply to my PC#-2?!?
If that's how it works, that's ridiculous.
You can put it on pc 2 but not PC 1.
|
You can play as a PC, then GM, and get GM credit for another PC. You can do it in reverse order as well, for example, running it the first time in your community(or first in a long while in your example), then play it for the second(or third, whatever) time it is run in your community. I recall that in the past you had to give the credit nit only to a different PC but also another faction, not sure if the faction is still an Issue.
To make it short, without a GM star, you may get both a PC and GM credit once each, for each scenario.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
You can get player credit and GM credit in any order. You only get one of each, and they need to go to different characters. If you GM a scenario before playing it, or playing it for a second time to create a legal table, you must warn your GM that you know what happens in the scenario.
When you play scenario #29, for the first time, with character #1 you get to apply credit to character #1.
Later on if you GM scenario #29 you get to apply credit to any character within the level range of the scenario except for character #1.
If down the road you find yourself playing scenario #29 again to create a legal table. You do not get credit a second time. Unless you use a GM star replay.
No Character can have 2 chronicle sheets from scenario #29. Even if one is from playing and one is from GMing.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks guys -- now it's all clear.
Much Appreciated
.
.
.
.
"DM"
Hey it is better then calling us a Judge, which I despise!!!
I like it!
Im calling all my GMs Judges now.
|
|
"DM"
|
|
It's just that when you use the term 'DM' you come off sounding clueless
"Clueless" is a little harsh. Like W.E. Ray, I've been playing tabletop rpgs for more than a couple decades. Long before Pathfinder was a twinkle in non-existent Paizo's eye. If anything, using DM reflexively would be a sign of respect for Pathfinder since it implies that Pathfinder is the heir to some pretty solid lineage.
Also, it's a sign of just how many freaking tabletop rpgs I've played over the past few decades. Car Wars, Shadowrun, White Wolf, Star Wars ... I pretty much just use DM to refer to anyone running a game. Easier than juggling the word salad of "storyteller" and "judge" and "planet master" and blah blah blah.
It's like calling a facial tissue a "Kleenex", or referring to lip balm as "chap stick".
|
|
Don- the person doesn't sound clueless at all. Just misinformed with old habits. Try to be a little bit less harsh to someone that seems fairly new to PFS.
Here is my thing about being called a DM. It is brand recognition. I constantly have new people come to gamedays looking for DnD. When I say we are playing Pathfinder here they think it is something different. In a way it is. 3.xx is far superior, IMHO, to 4th ed and I think PFS provides a much better experience than Encounters does. To this day Wizards still has that brand recognition despite PFS far outweighing then in terms of quality and Pathfinder has more than earned the right to be called what it is, not DnD 3.75. We play Pathfinder, we have GM's, we run scenarios, modules and adventure paths and we should label it as such or DnD is going to continue to get that brand recognition people still give them.
Aberrant Templar I see your point and it ties directly into my previous point, but in this case we are not talking about something generic, but something better and we should use the proper terms like GM.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Thanks guys -- now it's all clear.
Much Appreciated
.
.
.
."DM"** spoiler omitted **
I've been using GM/DM interchangeably on these forums for a while, for much the same reasons. This is the first time I have seen someone make a stink about it. Thankfully, TSR failed in its attempt to copyright "Hit Points." Lord knows what we'd be using now.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
To this day Wizards still has that brand recognition despite PFS far outweighing then in terms of quality and Pathfinder has more than earned the right to be called what it is, not DnD 3.75.
That, unfortunately, is kind of a Catch 22 for Paizo.
Do I think Pathfinder is superior to D&D 3.5? Yes.
Would I have ever tried Pathfinder is someone hadn't told me it was D&D 3.75? Nope.
|
|
Aberrant Templar I see your point and it ties directly into my previous point, but in this case we are not talking about something generic, but something better and we should use the proper terms like GM.
Well, if I publish gaming material I'll be certain to use the proper, non-copyrighted "GM" when referring to the person running the game.
But otherwise I'm probably going to keep using the metonym "DM" while I zip up my "Zipper" and take some "Aspirin" on my way to watch a "Hollywood" movie that was made in Boston.
Which says more about D&D's historic and pervasive influence on tabletop gaming than it does about me being clueless. I don't even remotely see how swapping a D for a G in a two-letter abbreviation can be considered "better".
|
Aberrant Templar I see your point and it ties directly into my previous point, but in this case we are not talking about something generic, but something better and we should use the proper terms like GM.Well, if I publish gaming material I'll be certain to use the proper, non-copyrighted "GM" when referring to the person running the game.
But otherwise I'm probably going to keep using the metonym "DM" while I zip up my "Zipper" and take some "Aspirin" on my way to watch a "Hollywood" movie that was made in Boston.
Which says more about D&D's historic and pervasive influence on tabletop gaming than it does about me being clueless. I don't even remotely see how swapping a D for a G in a two-letter abbreviation can be considered "better".
It is "better" because it is accurate. The English language is languishing in this thought process that says "No matter what I say, people will get what I mean." It's not until we stop that we realize just how silly we sound, just because we refuse to break habits. Like calling the guy running a Star Wars campaign on Tattooine a Dungeon Master (where's the dungeon? Granted, there are Krayt dragons, but still!). Or telling someone to rewind the DVD because you missed a bit (there's nothing to wind, let alone wind again).
Is it so wrong to say what you mean rather than simply meaning what you say?
I'm a Dungeon Master too.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it so wrong to say what you mean rather than simply meaning what you say?
It must be. Certainly game designers have a problem with it.
P.S. I always tell my kids to rewind the DVD before we send it back to Netflix so they don't have to do it there. It's the polite thing to do, after all.
|
|
My apologies. I meant no disrespect and didn't consider how harsh the word might be.
If it's any consolation, I preferred the term 'DM' and used it exclusively until it was explained to me what I was doing.
The main tool of our game is language. You can play chess with someone who shares no common language with you, but for D&D and it's variants, it is extremely difficult to enjoy the breadth and depth of the game if you can't communicate effectively with the others at the table.
Again my apologies.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Given that the main purpose of this question has been answered, I'll continue the derail.
DM stands for Dungeon Master. GM stands for Game Master. Not all adventures contain dungeons. Therefore, GM is the more appropriate term.
Then agaion, not all dungeons are underground, since people have been calling Master of the Fallen Fortress a classic dungeon crawl for some reason...
|
Wait wait wait. You're not allowed to play scenarios that you've only DM'd, unless it's to make a legal table?
That's incorrect, where did you read that?
For each scenario/module, you can receive a chronicle once as a player, and once as a GM, in any order. The chronicles can't be applied to the same PC.
|
|
It is "better" because it is accurate. The English language is languishing in this thought process ...
Well, fortunately English is a living and constantly evolving language that incorporates things like metonyms and genericism.
I say exactly what I mean, and mean exactly what I say. Always. DM is no more or less accurate than GM when discussing a person who runs a game. I'm just using a more inclusive definition than you are. :-)
|
|
welllll.... this is not really true.
By this reasoning the ruler of a country could easily be referenced by interchangeable titles such as Tyrant, President, King (Queen), and ah... Pope. You should NOT refer to the ruler of Vatican City as the ayatollah Francis
Oh come now, I've called the Pope worse things than "ayatollah" over the years.
On a more serious note, people use plenty of names for rulers that aren't their official title. If I say "The Prez" in reference to the US president, no one is going to wonder who I'm talking about.
Now, it may be polite to use the proper term when talking directly to the ruler of a nation or religion. But I wouldn't put "DM" in the same category as "Pope". Things are a bit more casual at a gaming table, there are a multitude of possible names for the person running a game, and none of them are titles that matter to anyone outside the immediate gaming group.
It may also be proper to use the correct term in an official document, and I most certainly would if I were publishing third party material for a specific gaming system. But I can call the Pope "Popey" if I want to in conversation. And if enough people start calling him that, sooner or later that will work its way into a dictionary and become a proper nickname.
Language is neat like that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aberrant, calling the President "the Prez" or the Pope "Popey" is not like interchanging DM and GM. It would be like calling the President the Prime Minister. Similar jobs, totally different countries with their own rules and guidelines. DM and GM? Similar jobs, totally different systems with their own rules and settings (based on the current structure of both. I think we can all agree that 4e/Next is vastly different than Pathfinder).
I do find it funny, however, that you say the language changes and yet your verbiage does not...
|
|
I use 'GM', because it's the standard term used in the CRB and Beginner Box. If there are new players at the table (or reading a thread, or witnessing a discussion) then using non-standard or obsolete terms like 'judge' or 'DM' is just likely to cause confusion.
Also, 'Dungeon Master' has always sounded stupid, perhaps because people here associate it with that patronising, wizened little imbecile from the cartoon series...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I call the man/woman running the table I sit at in PFS "Judge" or "the table judge" if I'm being formal. (I call Mr. Brock the PFS GM - as he has the last word in what is, and isn't legal in PFS).
Further on the off topic trend.
Not at my Table if I am GMing...
How Many times does the Guide Call those who run the game Judges? 0
How Many times does the Guide Call those who run the game GM or Game Master? 167
On the Chronicle Sheet is it GM Initials or Judge Initials?
It may be irrational, but every time I hear the term Judge I feel it is demeaning to what an actual Game Master does.
The way you use it makes it even worse to me, makes me feel less then Mike as a Game Master.
It may be irrational but that is how I feel.
|
|
Aberrant, calling the President "the Prez" or the Pope "Popey" is not like interchanging DM and GM. It would be like calling the President the Prime Minister.
There is basically no comparison between a President/Pope and a DM/GM. The first two are titles of elected officials that run countries. The second two are nicknames given to the person who is currently running a tabletop game.
If the President was any random person for a ~4 hour time block, for one day a week, then the two would be comparable.
At best you could make a comparison between a DM and a part time sport referee, except sports have all basically agreed on one term (referee) except Baseball and Cricket and there's no variation between teams or leagues as to what that term is. Where as tabletop gaming has dozens of names for the person running the game, with a much shorter span of history dominated by one company, and the only real dividing point is "what hasn't been copyrighted".
So, like I said, I'll use GM if I'm publishing something to avoid being sued. But everywhere else I'll probably stick to DM for the same reason I call facial tissues Kleenex.
|
|
So,... back to the OP--
In our Homegame Saturday we talked about this crap-bag Society rule that you can only get credit for a single Scenario twice, once for a PC when you play through it and once when you DM it.
This lead to our conversation of why that rule exists.
Is it just because of the following two reasons:
1} So folks keep having to purchase pdfs of new Scenarios making Paizo more money. (That I don't have a problem with, though I feel that two credits is too few.)
2} Because jerk-off cheese-cheaters find Scenarios with a tad more gold and, more likely, the ones with the stupid-broken boons -- the BANE of Society play -- and thus munchkin their way to a slightly stronger PFS-PCs?
Because if it's because of #2, the boons, that really upsets me. Boons are one of those "good-idea-in-theory / really-shi++y-in-practice" things about Society play (kinda like Factions & Faction Missions).
Has there been much conversation on the Boards here about the unbalanced and/or ridiculous lameness of Boons?
Has there been any thought about just eliminating all Boons altogether and vastly improving Society play?
Why can we only get credit twice for one Scenario if we regularly DM?