|
The new convention GM boons this year have been a choice of recharge boon or race boon. I'm not sure about your specific conventions - you should talk to your con organizers about that - but the powers that be have been trying to get more recharge boons out there.
Most of the points above have been addressed already, but one more thing (personally) is that GM credit characters can be disruptive. When you can just bring in a level 7 (or higher) character that doesn't have to worry about surviving "until the build comes together" and that can spend all their gold on big purchases instead of needed to spread it between consumables and gear that later become redundant, it can lead to disruptive character that wouldn't normally exist.
With GM credit being once/run, people still accumulate these blobs of credit. However, with it being unlimited, I think we'd see a lot more of them (even if the credit was only XP/PP/GP and no boons or items). As it is right now, if I don't have a character I want to apply credit to, I don't take the credit. I'm sure there are other people like that. However, if this unlimited system was in place, I'd probably put together a few blobs to wait in the wing. That, as a widespread practice, wouldn't be healthy for the game.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The new convention GM boons this year have been a choice of recharge boon or race boon. I'm not sure about your specific conventions - you should talk to your con organizers about that - but the powers that be have been trying to get more recharge boons out there.
Not everyone has a con organizer?
KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNS!
Most of the points above have been addressed already, but one more thing (personally) is that GM credit characters can be disruptive. When you can just bring in a level 7 (or higher) character that doesn't have to worry about surviving "until the build comes together" and that can spend all their gold on big purchases instead of needed to spread it between consumables and gear that later become redundant, it can lead to disruptive character that wouldn't normally exist.
The builds that don't work from level 1 are rarely more powerful than what someone could do with your stock zen archer, witch, or SOD/SOS wizard.
A lot of players don't bother with consumables (pain to track), and DM credit babies never played up or got dayjobs so they may have less cash than some of their all naturally grown counterparts.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agree with BNW. I have found that very few of my PCs use any measurable amount of consumables. The exception might be a wand of CLW (which I buy with prestige, anyway).
But, seeing as I'm one of those guys with an auto-8th-level PC, let me reassure you that he is no more powerful than any of my other PCs, and far LESS powerful than many of the characters I see as a GM. And, frankly, I bought things for him naturally as he progressed through his "career," despite that career being wrapped up in GM credits.
Having read the thread on GM credit babies, I think this approach is pretty common.
Edit: Which, I guess, makes me sound like I'm defending unlimited credit. I'm not. Instead, I'm trying to reassure you of the morality of our GMing corps, with regards to their PCs.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It seems I'm one of the few people who is skeptical about the idea of a GM running a scenario multiple times. I do believe it's an issue that should be taken into consideration as well. So let me elaborate on it a bit.
Obviously there are benefits to rerunning a scenario. You can re-use prep. You've already purchased everything you need, drawn all the maps, worked out all the statblocks, applied all the templates. There's still a bit of preparation to do - reassemble everything, check to see the previous group of players didn't run off with the handouts, print new chronicle sheets. Re-read the scenario to freshen your memory. But a lot of the heavy lifting has already been done.
And it gets better: if you're rerunning a scenario, presumably it's because you think it's a good scenario. You like running it, and a happy GM is better than one that's disappointed at what he found when he read something new. Also, you've had practice. You've seen how the previous bunch did it and so you have an idea of what works, and what needs to be done a bit differently.
So much for the good stuff. The bad side is a bit more nebulous. Imagine that you have a modestly sized lodge, say about 20 active players. A new scenario called Awesome Apes comes out and person #1 runs it. He likes running it so much, he decides to run it again next week. Both times, full table. Now person #2 was in the first group and he also liked the scenario and would like to run it. But after the re-run, there's only 8 people left in the lodge that haven't played it, one of which has GMed it twice so he knows it through and through. This makes scheduling a bit trickier due to geek scheduling sudoku the table doesn't fire.
A while later two new players join the lodge. Player #1, who happens to be a VC so he's a bit more active in recruiting new players, wants to share Awesome Apes with them because he likes it so much and everyone agrees he runs it very well, and we do wanna show new players the best PFS has to offer so they'll stick around. One of them is inspired to start GMing and wants to start with the scenario that sold him on PFS, only to find out everyone's already played it, and other players are also jostling to get a chance to try it.
The issue here is that while everyone is acting in good faith, trying their best to give everyone a good time, the end result is less than shiny.
I'm not denying all the advantaged of rerunning, but I don't think we need to stack the incentives on it too high either.
That said, if a reward is to be given, the one I'd most like would be to get to check a box on a faction journal (in the GM row) even when not assigning a credit/chronicle to that character. I've got quite a lot of PCs that I'd rather not overfeed on GM credit.
|
|
So much for the good stuff. The bad side is a bit more nebulous. Imagine that you have a modestly sized lodge, say about 20 active players. A new scenario called Awesome Apes comes out and person #1 runs it. He likes running it so much, he decides to run it again next week. Both times, full table. Now person #2 was in the first group and he also liked the scenario and would like to run it. But after the re-run, there's only 8 people left in the lodge that haven't played it, one of which has GMed it twice so he knows it through and through. This makes scheduling a bit trickier due to geek scheduling sudoku the table doesn't fire.
This seems like a self correcting issue. If you can't run it twice then you can't run it twice.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
So much for the good stuff. The bad side is a bit more nebulous. Imagine that you have a modestly sized lodge, say about 20 active players. A new scenario called Awesome Apes comes out and person #1 runs it. He likes running it so much, he decides to run it again next week. Both times, full table. Now person #2 was in the first group and he also liked the scenario and would like to run it. But after the re-run, there's only 8 people left in the lodge that haven't played it, one of which has GMed it twice so he knows it through and through. This makes scheduling a bit trickier due to geek scheduling sudoku the table doesn't fire.This seems like a self correcting issue. If you can't run it twice then you can't run it twice.
Yeah, but he has a point: How would you feel if what you could "unlock" after running Amazing Apes five times is the Vanara race? I know I could hit that number relatively easily. Could you?
In other words, too good a boon may lead to resentment from GMs who don't have large player bases, just like there is resentment about con-boons from players who don't attend coventions. That wouldn't necessarily be healthy for the overall community.
I still think there needs to be something. I still think the star recharge is a good balance. But I'm probably biased.
|
I don't think GM credit babies make disruptive characters. I think disruptive players make disruptive characters. If we pick rewards that reward behavior that improves the game and the community, then maybe:
1. Players who like to screw with people will hopefully not find the new rewards all that appealing, so we won't see a spike in unfun play; and/or
2. people who aren't fun to play with begin GMing more and learn how to be less of a pain in the backside while still hopefully having fun?
Bonus outcome:
3. Some people will try GMing, figure out it's not for them, and end up with more respect for the people who DO run games!
I'm not a fan of unlimited GM credit but I don't think the sky will fall if more people GM for less than perfectly altruistic reasons. (And I do like the idea of blank chronicle sheets, if there's a way to make that work. Especially for low-level play.)
What kinds of rewards are big enough to actually have an impact on GM numbers, and which of those rewards are going to encourage fun and cooperative play?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we are going to reward GM's for multiple runs I think it needs to be simple. More words on a chronicle will force more time for the editors which is a scare resource. Tonya and John will have to add rules for older chronicles to figure how to get the GM award.
I think a flat Gold / Fame (No Boons/Items) award is the better way to go for ease of implementation. Gold value would be based on the tier. We already have so many special rules for PFS, let's keep it simple.
I also think if this was to complete into play that the stars for replay should go away. The special boon for recharge GM's star replay should go away.
Edit
Idea - Would it be time to have a Player Guide to PFS and a GM guide?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This seems like a self correcting issue. If you can't run it twice then you can't run it twice.
I think that the point that Lau was trying to make is that in a limited player pool, a GM running the same scenario multiple times can make it difficult for other GMs to find enough players to run the same scenario even once. I have had that issue to a small degree at the store where I run regular games (Mr. Eshleman, the previous organizer at my location and the VC for my area, has a personal quest to run every Pathfinder scenario ever written). My solution has been to volunteer to run some games at other nearby venues (because I have the same personal quest <g>). Of course, this is not a viable solution for everyone. I don't personally think that we need to account for this issue in deciding GM benefits, however, because every area has its own organizing issues and we need to rely on the local Venture Agents and GMs to work together to optimize the play and GM experiences for everyone.
|
|
I think it's important that each area foster a sense of camaraderie amongst GMs, where everyone tries to work together to make sure everyone gets to have fun. Our local VC does a really good job at this and we're lucky to have him.
It sounds like the specific Mists of Mwangi example is unusual in that it's a VC doing it so there's no real check or balance there. In a perfect world the event coordinator or venture-person would try to keep an eye out for conflicts like that one; if that's not happening or a VO is not thinking twice about what they themselves are doing, I guess I feel like that is more of a cultural/social/something problem that should be talked through than it is an incentives problem.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rote GMs (or bad or under-prepared or "just in it for the boon" GMs) also damage the campaign as a whole, because any new players that come out are not going to be wowed by the best PFS has to offer.I'm an "in it for the boon" GM and I've had players who were trying PFS for the first time tell me that the experience made them want to play more.
I'm curious about your statement. Would you mind clarifying a bit? Are you "in it for the chronicle" (want to get credit to apply to a character) or "in it for the boon" (only GM scenarios that have what you consider a 'good boon')?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While the checklist idea that Drogon expanded upon does seem interesting, I am very skeptical of any efforts to better PFS involving unlimited replays (or in this case GM credit).
I am not sure how doling out unlimited GM credit would expand the GM base. It seems like a feel-good way of excusing letting the same guy GMing over and over and over.
From where I stand, PFSOP has come a long way from where it once was with regards to offering cool things for GMs. I'm excited about the idea that we could entice more prospective GMs into running a scenario but anything we come up with should be considered carefully. Living Forgotten Realms' failures still echo in my mind, and this organized campaign deserves better.
While tempting GMs with cool rewards is great, I also want to see people who GM because they feel that that one guy is always GMing, or that they really like the setting, or they played in this scenario and they would love to be behind the screen to run it now. I will admit that having the cool rewards upfront will get people started who's attitude changes as they run more and more. But I also worry that we'll get some really toxic people as well.
That is an understated downside to more GM rewards, and it deserves to be mentioned. We all know that they exist, I'm sure many of us can find local or campaign-wide examples of them, and these people will kill PFSOP (probably while casually dismissing their own role as they retell the tale later on).
I do not believe we need that.
|
The new convention GM boons this year have been a choice of recharge boon or race boon. I'm not sure about your specific conventions - you should talk to your con organizers about that - but the powers that be have been trying to get more recharge boons out there.
Most of the points above have been addressed already, but one more thing (personally) is that GM credit characters can be disruptive. When you can just bring in a level 7 (or higher) character that doesn't have to worry about surviving "until the build comes together" and that can spend all their gold on big purchases instead of needed to spread it between consumables and gear that later become redundant, it can lead to disruptive character that wouldn't normally exist.
With GM credit being once/run, people still accumulate these blobs of credit. However, with it being unlimited, I think we'd see a lot more of them (even if the credit was only XP/PP/GP and no boons or items). As it is right now, if I don't have a character I want to apply credit to, I don't take the credit. I'm sure there are other people like that. However, if this unlimited system was in place, I'd probably put together a few blobs to wait in the wing. That, as a widespread practice, wouldn't be healthy for the game.
Cayden's crawl we got Last years GM #1 and This years GM Boon #1 and that was it. I don't think either of those were recharging boons. I have been trying to coax my GMs to use their shots already and every one but me and James hoard theirs like a dragon with gold.
|
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
While tempting GMs with cool rewards is great, I also want to see people who GM because they feel that that one guy is always GMing, or that they really like the setting, or they played in this scenario and they would love to be behind the screen to run it now.
The problem is that one of the rewards that you're talking about is extrinsic while the other two are intrinsic. GMs don't need PFSHQ to write anything special to be intrinsically motivated. Currently there are very few extrinsic means of motivation to GM, and those that exist are worth the same amount as the rewards for playing, except GMs need to do 100% more work than players do to prepare for a game. For someone who is extrinsically motivating, the choice between playing and GMing is a no-brainer even if said individual likes GMing or would like to learn.
I will admit that having the cool rewards upfront will get people started who's attitude changes as they run more and more. But I also worry that we'll get some really toxic people as well.
Personally, I'd argue that the chance of getting toxic people doesn't matter because there are already toxic people in the community. Rewarding people who help keep the Organized Play system running shouldn't be penalized just because someone might be sour about it.
That is an understated downside to more GM rewards, and it deserves to be mentioned. We all know that they exist, I'm sure many of us can find local or campaign-wide examples of them, and these people will kill PFSOP (probably while casually dismissing their own role as they retell the tale later on).
Then what we should be talking about is, "How do we make a system that toxic people can't (or won't) destroy," rather than simply dismissing the idea. Even if what we start talking about is different from what we end up with, the conversation is important.
So pushing aside all what-ifs and conjectures and anecdotes, what do people think? Would a flawless system that allowed GMs to run games additional times and get a meaningful reward from the experience be a good idea? Because if the answer is, "Yes," or even "Possibly," then we should adjust the conversation towards making that idea work.
|
|
Cayden's crawl we got Last years GM #1 and This years GM Boon #1 and that was it. I don't think either of those were recharging boons. I have been trying to coax my GMs to use their shots already and every one but me and James hoard theirs like a dragon with gold.
Usually for convention I get a race boon or expanded narrative to offer for GMs. Expanded Narrative is labeled GM boon Alternate.
My thoughts on the free recharge of GM stars are that I'd hate to see GM stars recharge for free because it puts less incentive on GMs to GM more to gain stars, or recharge them with expanded narrative. I have given out a few expanded narratives this year and I'd hate to see those GM boons become worthless.
|
|
Cayden's crawl we got Last years GM #1 and This years GM Boon #1 and that was it. I don't think either of those were recharging boons. I have been trying to coax my GMs to use their shots already and every one but me and James hoard theirs like a dragon with gold.Usually for convention I get a race boon or expanded narrative to offer for GMs. Expanded Narrative is labeled GM boon Alternate.
I'd hate to see GM stars recharge for free because it puts less incentive on GMs to GM more to gain stars, or recharge them with expanded narrative. I have given out a few expanded narratives this year and I'd hate to see those GM boons become worthless.
I have 4 expanded narratives
|
|
I have 4 expanded narrativesCayden's crawl we got Last years GM #1 and This years GM Boon #1 and that was it. I don't think either of those were recharging boons. I have been trying to coax my GMs to use their shots already and every one but me and James hoard theirs like a dragon with gold.Usually for convention I get a race boon or expanded narrative to offer for GMs. Expanded Narrative is labeled GM boon Alternate.
I'd hate to see GM stars recharge for free because it puts less incentive on GMs to GM more to gain stars, or recharge them with expanded narrative. I have given out a few expanded narratives this year and I'd hate to see those GM boons become worthless.
I have some hoarded boons from GenCon 16 and a nice wax seal I used for the welcome to pathfinder boon. I got white, gold, silver an red with the sihedron or glyph of the open road.
|
|
While tempting GMs with cool rewards is great, I also want to see people who GM because they feel that that one guy is always GMing, or that they really like the setting, or they played in this scenario and they would love to be behind the screen to run it now.The problem is that one of the rewards that you're talking about is extrinsic while the other two are intrinsic. GMs don't need PFSHQ to write anything special to be intrinsically motivated. Currently there are very few extrinsic means of motivation to GM, and those that exist are worth the same amount as the rewards for playing, except GMs need to do 100% more work than players do to prepare for a game. For someone who is extrinsically motivating, the choice between playing and GMing is a no-brainer even if said individual likes GMing or would like to learn.
Fair point.
Personally, I'd argue that the chance of getting toxic people doesn't matter because there are already toxic people in the community. Rewarding people who help keep the Organized Play system running shouldn't be penalized just because someone might be sour about it.
I fundamentally disagree on that. Toxic players can cause harm, toxic GMs can do ten times worse because of the perception players have of that person representing the PFSOP leadership. By the time leadership steps in to pick pieces up, the damage has been done. We should strive to avoid these situations.
Then what we should be talking about is, "How do we make a system that toxic people can't (or won't) destroy," rather than simply dismissing the idea. Even if what we start talking about is different from what we end up with, the conversation is important.
I agree, and I encourage people who have ideas to make more people want to GM to share them. I, unfortunately do not have any ideas on that, but my basic point of view on the matter is different. But please, do not take it as a desire to quash conversation. Go nuts, throw ideas out there!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting extra chronicle sheets - No necessary. When I speak to most of my friends who GM, after a while, the credits just stack up somewhere. I have couple of GM babies who are "clone" replacement, they will be used in case one of my favorite characters die. I just rather play my characters, they are fun that is why I made them.
GM more than once - For me, GMing a scenario a few times is a benefit for all those involved. I like to get the exact monsters and maps for the scenario that I GM. Getting to use it a few times such make it more cost effective. Spending extra time to prep make a game better. I found that players always surprise me On how they handle a situation and each time I run the same scenario, I can handle the unexpected better. Run the same scenario more times make a GM specialized in that scenario.
Award and recognition - maybe not necessary, but if someone who run the same scenario five times, she can be called "veteran GM for 07-01", if they ran it 10 times, they can be called "master GM for 07-01"
Boons - if you become a Veteran GM for a few scenarios, you get a boon. This way, Paizo can just come up with 1 boon sheet and it should covered it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
This seems like a self correcting issue. If you can't run it twice then you can't run it twice.I think that the point that Lau was trying to make is that in a limited player pool, a GM running the same scenario multiple times can make it difficult for other GMs to find enough players to run the same scenario even once.
This is indeed the point I was driving at.
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is indeed the point I was driving at.This seems like a self correcting issue. If you can't run it twice then you can't run it twice.I think that the point that Lau was trying to make is that in a limited player pool, a GM running the same scenario multiple times can make it difficult for other GMs to find enough players to run the same scenario even once.
*looks at you shifty* You totally mean me with running so much of the Disappeared, dont you?
:P
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
This is indeed the point I was driving at.This seems like a self correcting issue. If you can't run it twice then you can't run it twice.I think that the point that Lau was trying to make is that in a limited player pool, a GM running the same scenario multiple times can make it difficult for other GMs to find enough players to run the same scenario even once.*looks at you shifty* You totally mean me with running so much of the Disappeared, dont you?
:P
No, but now that you mention it - the fracas last week when Vincent couldn't muster a table to run it does sort of demonstrate the point.
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
No, but now that you mention it - the fracas last week when Vincent couldn't muster a table to run it does sort of demonstrate the point.This is indeed the point I was driving at.This seems like a self correcting issue. If you can't run it twice then you can't run it twice.I think that the point that Lau was trying to make is that in a limited player pool, a GM running the same scenario multiple times can make it difficult for other GMs to find enough players to run the same scenario even once.*looks at you shifty* You totally mean me with running so much of the Disappeared, dont you?
:P
I think he was a bit too quick. By now Beaudy and I are just about the only ones that havent played it yet. Vincent just likes season 4 way too much ;)
|
That said, I think the boon that allows GM stars to recharge should absolutely be available in some way outside of conventions.
So, how about we get this "re-GM" thing together with that boon?
Our "check off the box" list could look something like this:
[ ] If you are GMing a scenario for the second time, check this box. You now have access to the "I'm a Re-runner" boon.
[ ] I'm a Re-runner! While in combat you may use this boon to perform the withdraw action and not draw an attack of opportunity in the first two squares you move through. Check the box once the boon has been used.[ ] If you are GMing a scenario for the third time, check this box. You now have access to the "I'm in for Three" boon.
[ ] I'm in For Three! While gathering information in a bar you may use this boon to gain a +5 bonus on your skill check. Check this box once the boon has been used.[ ] If you are GMing a scenario for the fourth time, chick this box. You now have access to the "I'm all For It" boon.
[ ] I'm All For It! While in combat and you use the charge action, you gain a +4 bonus to damage rolls. You gain this bonus for the remainder of the combat whenever you use the charge action. Check this box once the boon has been used.[ ] If you are GMing a scenario for the fifth time, check this box. You now have access to the "Five Stars, Here I Come" boon.
[ ] Five Stars, Here I Come! You may recharge your use of the "star replays" you have used. This boon only recharges replays you have used, and does not add to the total replays you have beyond the number of stars you possess. You may only earn this boon once per scenario you...
I fit into the third demographic that hasn't been discussed here.
As a "forever Gm" - the only times I'm not the gm at my local games are the days I have a conflicting schedule, tether due to the fact that I only have 2 other GMs and want them to be able to play every other month, or because I enjoy GMing more than playing. This does nothing and is as worthless as gm credit.(I have only taken GM credit in order to fill a high level table next slot when there were no sign ups) I have been a player 0 times in the last year, and 2 times in the last 2 years. I have over 20 unused convention boons because I haven't played since before I got them.Personally, I have always been in the camp of "GMs spend more money on books and things to run games, GMs should get something useful for GMing as appreciation." The bragging rights given for stars are a good start. But as a challenge... Is there any way to make a check card like this that can help GMs to gm? Cause that would actually be useful.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I GM waaaay too much...
Not really, of course. No one can GM *too* much. But I see your point.
There is nothing about the ideas set forth in this thread that are set in stone. And John is obviously checking in to follow the discussion. So, put down some ideas of your own. What kind of things would you like to see?
|
|
But as a challenge... Is there any way to make a check card like this that can help GMs to gm? Cause that would actually be useful.
I was actually trying to figure something like that out on my first go-round of check-box things, but the problem is I couldn't think of anything that wouldn't lead to more issues with "table variation" or increased perceptions of "antagonistic GM'ing" if there was a checkbox thing that would effectively let a GM become more effective against a specific PC or group of PCs...
|
|
But as a challenge... Is there any way to make a check card like this that can help GMs to gm? Cause that would actually be useful.I was actually trying to figure something like that out on my first go-round of check-box things, but the problem is I couldn't think of anything that wouldn't lead to more issues with "table variation" or increased perceptions of "antagonistic GM'ing" if there was a checkbox thing that would effectively let a GM become more effective against a specific PC or group of PCs...
I like Earl Gendron's thought of trying to find something that would benefit a GM in particular in their role as GM, but I'm with TimD in that a lot of the ideas that come to my mind immediately would lead to issues with changing scenario mechanics and challenges, which is not allowed in the interest of keeping the game balanced. There have been many occasions where I'm running a table and a failed NPC save has rendered an encounter boring, but if we have a mechanic where the GM can reroll the save and then the fight goes much differently and a character dies instead, would that be fair? I've also had occasions where a lucky die roll has killed a PC - would it be fair to others if I were to softball the challenge and have the NPC reroll? I recently played a game where my character made a poor decision, suffered a crit, and died, and he lacked the resources to be raised; as much as I would like to have that character back, I recognize that the rules don't allow it and if we remove the chance of character death, we remove the thrill of the game. I took a chance and I paid the price. If the die rolls had come out a different way initially and a GM was allowed to reroll and my character then died as a result, I would be much less sanguine about it.
[Edit: Edited the last bit to make it clear that the character in question was mine.]
|
Venture-Captain, Netherlands
|
I think he was a bit too quick. By now Beaudy and I are just about the only ones that havent played it yet. Vincent just likes season 4 way too much ;)No, but now that you mention it - the fracas last week when Vincent couldn't muster a table to run it does sort of demonstrate the point.This is indeed the point I was driving at.This seems like a self correcting issue. If you can't run it twice then you can't run it twice.I think that the point that Lau was trying to make is that in a limited player pool, a GM running the same scenario multiple times can make it difficult for other GMs to find enough players to run the same scenario even once.*looks at you shifty* You totally mean me with running so much of the Disappeared, dont you?
:P
On a side note, I know the Disappeared so well now that I could run it without the scenario.
|
Organized Play Coordinator
|
Cayden's crawl we got Last years GM #1 and This years GM Boon #1 and that was it. I don't think either of those were recharging boons. I have been trying to coax my GMs to use their shots already and every one but me and James hoard theirs like a dragon with gold.
Since I started handling Con support last October, I have sent the Expanded Narrative as an Alternative GM Boon alongside the quarterly GM boon. If your event occurred after November, talk to your organizer about getting your GM boons swapped.
:)
|
Organized Play Coordinator
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
While you don't always see us posting, the PFS team is really good about reading the threads and discussing the ideas that come up.
All ideas are appreciated, especially the ones where you debate the merits/flaws and look at the entire situation. It is not that we don't want to give shiny cookies and incentives. But we do have to maintain balance and foster a healthy society.
Keep up the great work!!!!
|
|
While you don't always see us posting, the PFS team is really good about reading the threads and discussing the ideas that come up.
All ideas are appreciated, especially the ones where you debate the merits/flaws and look at the entire situation. It is not that we don't want to give shiny cookies and incentives. But we do have to maintain balance and foster a healthy society.
Keep up the great work!!!!
Pssst folks....THEY never sleep. I think John Compton have a No-Doze IV drip! :). I'll be up at 3am, sleep on a flight home, crash at my folks place, and he'll post all day long!!
|
|
Looks like I missed this board when it was at it's peek of activity, but after perusing it, I have to add my two cents.
Point 1: To those who say there is no need for more GMs, I have no idea what you are talking about. Sure, every once in a while I see a table fold due to a lack of players, but for every table that is short players I see dozens of games that have to shut out players because there is no room. So clearly, more people GMing more games would be beneficial.
Point 2: Incentives. Incentives. Incentives. These are the three things that make the world go round. Why Pathfinder Society actively chooses to disincentivize GMing has always mystified me. Sure, lots of people GM just for the fun of it. Plenty of people on this board have stated that they only run games for the pleasure of it, but if you look closely those tend to be the people with 3 or more stars. That's great. I am so happy there are those people out there, but this incentive wouldn't be for you.
Point 3: I would like to see an incentive that got more people into GMing. It can be a pretty big hurdle to start GMing. Those first few games usually represent a lot of prep. I know my first few games had twice the prep time as run time. I still invest at least 2 or 3 hours before running a game. The second time I run something is always better than the first. The third and fourth time I ran a scenario was even better. Why would you not want to reward good practiced GMing?
Point 4: A good incentive is simple, has an immediate reward, and doesn't disrupt the overall system. I fully advocate the idea of giving full XP, gold, and prestige but no boons or items for scenarios run 2 or more times. Alternatively, I also would support a system that gave slightly less gold and prestige to represent the cost players would normally accrue during the regular course of the game and to encourage GMs to run new games. Rewarding a GM with 1 XP, 1.5 prestige and fame, and 80% of the gold for a scenario feels like a good balance point in rewarding GMs.
|
|
I am not sure if this has been mentioned up thread.
How about giving a GM extra GM credit equal to the stars they have earned?
So For example a 1 star GM can get credit for 1) playing a scenario 2) Playing a core Scenario, 3) GMing a scenario 4) GMing a core Scenario.....and they get one more bonus GM credit.
A five star GM would get five bonus GM credits they could earn by GMing.
Maybe its too unwieldy. Its just a thought.
|
|
At the very least, how about being able to assign a 0xp/gp/pp/boons chronicle to a character, allowing for faction journal card GM goals to be advanced?
Since I started handling Con support last October, I have sent the Expanded Narrative as an Alternative GM Boon alongside the quarterly GM boon. If your event occurred after November, talk to your organizer about getting your GM boons swapped.The problem I have with this is that I'm the kind of player that likes building characters, so I vastly prefer to take a race boon (and the only cons I can really do are online, so I don't get GM boons all that often), so every opportunity to take an Expanded Narrative goes towards those, instead.
This, as always, is the tradeoff. It's your choice.
|
|
I think what he is referring to, is that in the early stages of PFS the idea was that star replays would renew each year. It even made it into an early version of the PFS players guide, but got edited out before it became official. This is all before my time and I have only heard about this second hand, so I may be getting the details wrong.
|
|
I do have some sympathy for SCPRedMage. I exclusively GM online. So far I have not found an opportunity to GM at a CON. There is a significant real world expense to attending a CON that places it out of reach for many people. I'm lucky living in the Minneapolis/St.Paul area. There is a rather vibrant gaming community here and there are opportunities to participate in a handful of conventions every year. There are a lot of places that don't have that kind of access. Even when CONS are in close physical proximity, there is still the significant financial barrier. It would be nice if the barrier to access some of the "CON only" boons was a little lower.
But this is really a discussion for a different thread. I think I will go back to enjoying the sunset now.
|
|
Earliest stages of PFS, GMs did not get credit at all.
Then up to about either late season 3 or season 4, I forget which, GMs could not get boons. Then they were allowed to get boons. Then at the start of season 5, star replays were created. They were never set to automatically recharge. Mike did indicate it was a potential option, but they wanted to see how it went first. Then the Expanded Narrative was created the next season and automatic recharge of replay was discarded as an idea.
|
|
I do have some sympathy for SCPRedMage. I exclusively GM online. So far I have not found an opportunity to GM at a CON. There is a significant real world expense to attending a CON that places it out of reach for many people. I'm lucky living in the Minneapolis/St.Paul area. There is a rather vibrant gaming community here and there are opportunities to participate in a handful of conventions every year. There are a lot of places that don't have that kind of access. Even when CONS are in close physical proximity, there is still the significant financial barrier. It would be nice if the barrier to access some of the "CON only" boons was a little lower.
But this is really a discussion for a different thread. I think I will go back to enjoying the sunset now.
Not making the following statement as any judgment on the previous ideas, complaints or commiserations.
You can attend online conventions and get the GM boons that way.
|
|
The danger with restricting the credits for those that are seeking them is this:
"Well, I can only get GM credit for a given scenario once. So I've played 10-5, 10-7, 10-9 'Search for the Lost Cheeseburger' and I've run each one once. I guess I don't ever have to look at them ever again, since they're nothing to me."
And yes, believe it or not, there are some regions and places that have 'restricted' the scenarios that they run at conventions to 'what GMs they can get', which is a counter-productive way to run things if the GM pool also restricts themselves as noted above.
Sure, there's citing 'love of the game' but if *everyone* in a given area wants to play *insert scenario here*, then there's little motivation for a volunteer to put more time into it than is healthy.
The only offerings today were for a scenario I'm already playing in PbP (evergreen, but still, it just doesn't feel 'right' to play it before the PbP is done) and a Season One jobber. Neither one had any player sign-ups, and there was no opportunity to volunteer to judge anything different due to RL commitments.
Tomorrow, they're running the three-rounder *from last year* as the only PFS offering.
Again, no sign-ups and no chance to volunteer.
If there's no good RELIABLE way to volunteer locally, then that probably needs work...
If everyone wants 19-4 Kalkamedes Marches Back: THIS TIME IT'S ON! but it's already been run enough times that the local market is 'saturated', then there's no chance for newbie GMs that played it and who now wants to run it to run it.
On the other side of the token, if there's *one* GM that's run it for the *one time they get credit* and there's a demand for four more tables of it at subsequent conventions, they may not feel so generous about helping the campaign out.
I'm not saying all GMs nor all volunteers are selfish on that scale.
And some GMs (bless their hearts) even take great joy in running rather than playing.
Is there some way to reach a level of fairness on this without abusing or disrupting the system?