PSA: GM Star Replays Do Not Renew (and if you think they do, you probably have the wrong version of the Guide)

[Patrick Harris @ MU]

Folks, over in this thread it has become very apparent that people are confused about GM Star replays and whether or not they renew.

Here is the text from the Guide, page 20, with relevant text bolded:

Quote:

Alternatively, campaign GMs who are recognized for their efforts by receiving GM stars (see page 37), may receive additional player or GM credit for a number of non-Tier 1 scenarios or sanctioned modules per GM star they have earned. For example, a three-star GM may select any three scenarios or sanctioned modules that she can then play or GM for credit one additional time each. For each of these adventures, she can thus earn a total of three Chronicle sheets, rather than the two normally allowed. When replaying a scenario with GM-star credit, the GM completing the Chronicle sheet will annotate the Notes section of the Chronicle sheet and add “GM Star Replay Credit × Star” to annotate the use of star credit replay. The GM Star Replay Credits are a once per star, lifetime benefit.

The confusion stems from the fact that the "Beta" version of the Guide 5.0, which was released before GenCon 2013, said that they would renew every season. However, from the time the Guide went live, the policy has been "lifetime"; this is not a mid-season shift.

If you have a version of the Guide that says otherwise, you need to download the new version of the Guide!

Now, it is possible that this will change in the future, but time will tell.

Finally, I want to note something here: I am concerned that this is going to be blamed on the fact that the Guide sees a beta release at all. While I definitely absolutely agree with the general sentiment that the next beta release should be clearly marked as such--not least because at least a few of the people who expressed confusion in that other thread are Venture Officers--I think it's worth noting that the confusion was internal as well as external (note not just the linked message but the one it was replying to, please). I don't think the policy of releasing the Guide early, for feedback, is to blame; it was in fact that same early release that caught this error. While the process of release obviously needs some refinement, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Dave Setty]

I think the main problem is the beta having the same version number as the release version. At least once I actually looked up the rule in my copy of the guide, and then actually looked at my downloads page to check because I thought I remembered differently, but didn't download the new one because I thought mine was current.

I think this confusion would be much reduced if Paizo just incremented the version of the current guide by 1.

[Patrick Harris @ MU]

Dave Setty wrote:

I think the main problem is the beta having the same version number as the release version. At least once I actually looked up the rule in my copy of the guide, and then actually looked at my downloads page to check because I thought I remembered differently, but didn't download the new one because I thought mine was current.

I think this confusion would be much reduced if Paizo just incremented the version of the current guide by 1.

Assuming you mean .1, I agree. The beta release could be 6.0, and the official version could be 6.1.

If they feel like it makes more sense to have 6.0 release with Season 6, the beta version could be 6.0b, or it could be 5.99.

Or the beta version could have "THIS IS A BETA VERSION" watermarked on every page, even! As long as it's clear. ;)

[Tarma]

Would it be possible that we could get a decision one way or the other in a PFS FAQ? I think that would help out with this debate substantially.

[CRobledo]

Tarma wrote:

Would it be possible that we could get a decision one way or the other in a PFS FAQ? I think that would help out with this debate substantially.

There currently should be no debate. The most recent guide is very clear that they are lifetime. Whether that stays the same or changes later, we will see. But NOW you should plan with the knowledge that they are lifetime.

[Dave Setty]

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

Dave Setty wrote:

I think the main problem is the beta having the same version number as the release version. At least once I actually looked up the rule in my copy of the guide, and then actually looked at my downloads page to check because I thought I remembered differently, but didn't download the new one because I thought mine was current.

I think this confusion would be much reduced if Paizo just incremented the version of the current guide by 1.

Assuming you mean .1, I agree. The beta release could be 6.0, and the official version could be 6.1.

If they feel like it makes more sense to have 6.0 release with Season 6, the beta version could be 6.0b, or it could be 5.99.

Or the beta version could have "THIS IS A BETA VERSION" watermarked on every page, even! As long as it's clear. ;)

Yeah,i meant change it to 5.1. Then use 6.0b for next season's beta, and 6.1 for release.

(And I guess I misremembered, version doesn't show in the dl page. Must havee got as far as opening the new guide from the zip file and seeing the version number on the first page.

[Michael Meunier]

When I downloaded the current version, I made sure the file was renamed to "v 5.01" since there may be an actual 5.1 someday.

[Patrick Harris @ MU]

Tarma wrote:

Would it be possible that we could get a decision one way or the other in a PFS FAQ? I think that would help out with this debate substantially.

There is no debate. The rule is explicitly stated in the Guide. Some people have the wrong Guide, but that's not something that needs a FAQ--they just need to download the right Guide.

That's why I posted this thread.

[Mystically Inclined]

Can we get this thread stickied? :)

[Mekkis]

Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:

Tarma wrote:

Would it be possible that we could get a decision one way or the other in a PFS FAQ? I think that would help out with this debate substantially.

There is no debate. The rule is explicitly stated in the Guide. Some people have the wrong Guide, but that's not something that needs a FAQ--they just need to download the right Guide.

That's why I posted this thread.

With all due respect, the fact that it keeps coming up is the definition of a Frequently Asked Question.

Unless we really think that the FAQs are nothing but a place for stealth-errata, this fits right in.

[Kristen Gipson]

It even says on the change log between the beta edition and the current edition that the change was made.

[Patrick Harris @ MU]

Mekkis wrote:

With all due respect, the fact that it keeps coming up is the definition of a Frequently Asked Question.

Unless we really think that the FAQs are nothing but a place for stealth-errata, this fits right in.

Y'know, whatever. I'm so sick of arguing about it. If this many people need that much handholding, maybe that's just the only option.

[Lady Ophelia]

I won't lie, it would be nice if it were yearly instead of lifetime. But it's all good, I am not too worried about it. Since I do not play a whole lot anyway, using my replay is not something that I am all in a rush to do.

[James Risner]

Lifetime makes it a unused resource that is always saved and never applied.

Yearly (if they change it for Season 6) would make it something that gets used.

[TriOmegaZero]

James Risner wrote:

Lifetime makes it a unused resource that is always saved and never applied.

Not according to reports from the field.

[James Risner]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Lifetime makes it a unused resource that is always saved and never applied.

Not according to reports from the field.

Regional differences, because I know of two replays used total and more than I can count of "wait you mean they don't refresh yearly? Ok well I'll see you guys next week."

[Benrislove]

I am under the belief that they will become yearly, as they haven't caused any problems.

Once lifetime simply means that if there is a problem you don't end up taking it away from people.

I think it would be cooler if next year it increased to double your stars in replays.so that those newer GMs, have some replays piled up when they run out of scenarios :-)

[CRobledo]

Being yearly is purely speculation. Nothing official has been said outside "we may re-evaluate them in the future."

What I don't want to see is if they DONT become yearly at Gencon, a lot of people complaining "OMG we were promized yearly refreshes; torches and pitchforks against Paizo for not delivering on promizes! *Rabble Rabble*"

[Jeffrey Fox]

James Risner wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Lifetime makes it a unused resource that is always saved and never applied.

Not according to reports from the field.

Regional differences, because I know of two replays used total and more than I can count of "wait you mean they don't refresh yearly? Ok well I'll see you guys next week."

Yeah, probably regional. I've used three myself. I'm pretty sure at least 4 or 5 have been used total by others.

I'm not really sold on whether the need to be yearly, or lifetime myself. I'm a bit on the fence in that regard.

[Benrislove]

Carlos Robledo wrote:

Being yearly is purely speculation. Nothing official has been said outside "we may re-evaluate them in the future."

What I don't want to see is if they DONT become yearly at Gencon, a lot of people complaining "OMG we were promized yearly refreshes; torches and pitchforks against Paizo for not delivering on promizes! *Rabble Rabble*"

this is 100% true, and I'm mentioning it because my hopes, and estimations hold no sway of validity.

[bugleyman]

Yearly refresh is more than speculation -- it was written that way in an earlier draft of the guide. I hope and expect that it will go yearly, but I won't be upset if it doesn't.

[lastblacknight]

...and it was also annoying finding out it was a lifetime boon after allocating them to sessions - had I known earlier (I didn't know my rules guide was beta) - I would have saved my star for special occasions or something more meaningful.

and I had to go back and apologise to some of my local GM's that I was wrong and they were in fact a one-off lifetime benefit.

Really, if you are wanting encourage GM's to run PFS games, a seasonally refreshing benefit isn't too much of issue (it's a sweetener for being a volunteer and running games for other people).
I'd be interested to know if the most vocal complainers on the boards actually had any stars themselves if they were players concerned they were missing out. The language seemed to suggest other people were getting something nice and that's not fair, rather than recognising the perk as being earned through the hard work and dedication of somebody who is helping build the community.

/resurrect

[Disk Elemental]

Yeah.

My #1 wish for this year is that they revert the change, and make stars refresh at Gen Con every year.

[Nefreet]

If they decide to change it to yearly renewal I hope they let us know like a month beforehand so we can use a few for this last year.

[TetsujinOni]

Yeah, if I could be using them on a level 2 thornkeep replay to push characters to 3 and still save a replay of Eyes of the Ten for the future....

[Zach W.]

There's so many scenarios I want to play through again as a different character, to see how the scenario plays with a different concept, or a different attitude in the roleplay. The sessions for Playing and then GMing for Blackross Matrimony were COMPLETELY different. I also played Defenders of Nesting Swallow twice, with similar mindset characters and even then both sessions were so different.

[Chris Mortika]

So, get a bunch of friends together and play those adventures again, Zach. Have fun seeing the scenarios play out with different characters. Nobody says you can't replay scenarios. The restriction is on replaying them for credit.

I say this, and it sounds so basic. If I were to read this on the boards, I'll roll my eyes and say "Duh."

But I have seen, over and over, PFS players turn down amazing opportunities, such as playing scenarios with the author as the GM, because they couldn't get a Chronicle sheet out of it. I am convinced that, as a community, we're over-emphasizing those things.

[TetsujinOni]

Chris Mortika wrote:

So, get a bunch of friends together and play those adventures again, Zach. Have fun seeing the scenarios play out with different characters. Nobody says you can't replay scenarios. The restriction is on replaying them for credit.

I say this, and it sounds so basic. If I were to read this on the boards, I'll roll my eyes and say "Duh."

But I have seen, over and over, PFS players turn down amazing opportunities, such as playing scenarios with the author as the GM, because they couldn't get a Chronicle sheet out of it. I am convinced that, as a community, we're over-emphasizing those things.

I had a great time playing a table of five friends, one burning a GM star replay, one playing for credit, and three of us rocking pregens to fill the table and enjoy each other's company over an entertaining game.

It's not how I'd prioritize my PFRPG & PFS play opportunities, but it was a fun day with friends, and that's worth the time.

[Ulfen Death Squad]

If it stays a lifetime thing, how about making a reward for 5 star GMs the they get 2 star replays each year (recycling at either gencon or paizo con). Just a thought.

[Zach W.]

Chris Mortika wrote:

So, get a bunch of friends together and play those adventures again, Zach. Have fun seeing the scenarios play out with different characters. Nobody says you can't replay scenarios. The restriction is on replaying them for credit.

I say this, and it sounds so basic. If I were to read this on the boards, I'll roll my eyes and say "Duh."

But I have seen, over and over, PFS players turn down amazing opportunities, such as playing scenarios with the author as the GM, because they couldn't get a Chronicle sheet out of it. I am convinced that, as a community, we're over-emphasizing those things.

I believe I have misrepresented.

I have indeed played several scenarios with no expectation of reward, simply for the fun of playing the scenario or because I wanted to play with a friend. In these cases I normally play a pregen.

GMing wise, I GM scenarios multiple times all the live long day, I do not care.

The problem comes from a resource expenditure problem. If I replay a scenario with a character because I want to interact with it from a different view point, or class, and I take level drains, or ability drains, or a curse, some of these things are very expensive to repair.

So you are then penalized for simply wanting to replay a good scenario because you want to experience it with another of your characters, or perhaps a different GM.

What if you take a scenario at a Con, and find out that the GM was absolutely horribly? Well, the only way to play that scenario again is to use a star. Hope you don't have more than 4-5 bad GM's in your entire characters career, let alone your entire time in PFS.

Opening star replays to renew yearly will do nothing to break the balance of the game. You can replay at most 5 scenarios a year. This is a very nice reward to folks for GMing and will heavily encourage others to GM. I know plenty of people now who simply forget they can replay because they can essentially choose 2-3.

[lastblacknight]

Or as in my case; I used a Star to play so a table could run (hey I was there and had my sheet ready to go - no worries right?)

I played for the adjusted down credit and gold - fun was had - everything is legal etc...

...only to find out later that the Star was once-off lifetime benefit.

Would I have played? Of course - I have before and will do again

Would I have accepted credit? - heck no! I'd play for nothing..

I *had* a printed copy of the rules (it's in the pack I have for game-days along with traits, and the printed pages I use as rules references for non-core traits,feats,spells etc...)

What caught me out was the change in rules with the same version number and I found out after I had played, which meant a life benefit replay was already lost.

I also agree that rolling the rules back to Stars per season would suit me better (now I don't run PFS and have no idea of how this 'might' effect the society - I don't have that vision or responsibility - Kudos to Mike for all his hard work)

But letting a PFS get credit for running/playing more games per season I think is a good thing - probably because I am one of those GM's (Volunteers - the people who put aside their time to entertain others)..