|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had to look this up, as it was before I started playing PFS. The first release of the 5th season players guide stated that GM star replays would automatically recharge every year. By the official start of season 5 they had rereleased the season guide and edited out that part.
That first release was an unofficial copy created for the player base to vet before going live. That language was never intended to be in the guide.
|
|
That first release was an unofficial copy created for the player base to vet before going live. That language was never intended to be in the guide.
I know. I just believe this is what the earlier poster was referencing. I was just offering the info for clarity. The info was generally released to the gaming community, but hit the editing room floor before it became official.
|
|
Hazuka, has a pretty valid point. I would guess it would be more accurate to say that it was considered a strong possibility, but in the end the management decided to go in another direction.
This is all old news and drifting far afield of the original focus of the thread. Let me reiterate my beliefs on this topic.
1 More new GMs is good.
2 GMing can be hard, especially those that are new to it.
3. Incentives. Simple, clear cut incentives that offer small but immidiate benefit. Don't break the system.
4. 1 XP, 1.5 prestige and fame, and 80% gold for all subsequent times running a scenario after the first.
This is the answer you have been looking for. This is the lazy curveball over the middle of the plate. This is all upside with almost no downside. I recommend you run the numbers with your business guy and your trusted VCs. This is a winner. All up side. Very little down.
Contributor
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So there seems to be two very basic thought processes in this thread, which have a LOT of good points on both sides of their argument. 1) We need replays to help incentify more GMs to run games. 2) Reruns hurt the game because they encounter GMs to cherry-pick scenarios for boons, which hurts Organized Play by stagnating it.
As many probably know from my freelance work, I enjoy designing solutions to problems, and when you get right down to it there isn't a whole lot of difference between designing rules for a character class and rules for Organized Play because you're ultimately designing rules for how people interact with and in a game. So with that in mind, I pulled the first two paragraphs of text from the "GM Rewards" section in the Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild Guide to Organized Play and rewrote them to try and make a fair middle ground between both points. I'd be interested in hearing what people thing.
In Pathfinder Society Organized Play, we reward GMs for volunteering their time to run events. Starting with Version 2.2 of this document (and not retroactive to any previous scenarios that were run), any GM who runs a scenario gets full credit for that scenario applied to one of her own characters. “Full credit” means the GM gets the following: 1 XP for the scenario, 100% of the Max Gold for the subtier most appropriate to the GM’s PC, and 2 PP (or, for a slow advancement track character, 1/2 XP, 1 PP, and 50% of the Max Gold for the subtier most appropriate to the GM’s PC). The GM may select any special boons bestowed by a Chronicle sheet, such as free magical treasure, regional boons, or future bonus die rolls. The GM does not get a Downtime check.
Unlike a player, a GM can run a single scenario multiple times, but she does not gain full credit on subsequent games after the first. Instead, she gains "partial credit," which means the GM gains the following if she has previously run the scenario for credit before: 1 XP for the scenario, 100% of the Max Gold for the subtier most appropriate to the GM's PC, and 2 PP (or, for a slow advancement track character, 1/2 XP, 1 PP, and 50% of the Max Gold for the subtier most appropriate to the GM's PC). ThE GM cannot select the special boons bestowed by the Chronicle sheet, such as free magical treasure, regional boons, or future bonus die roles. The GM does not gain a Downtime check. Additionally, there is limited replay allowed for "full credit" depending upon the number of GM stars earned (see page 20).
The basic idea is that this system A) keeps the existing reward system valid by making stars into the primary way you can put access to boons and cool items on multiple characters while B) partially rewarding GMs who need to run a scenario multiple times. Because I agree with camp "We Need Looser Restrictions on GM Replays." I'm professionally trained as a teacher, and one of the first things they tell you in Educational Psychology 101 is that every time you teach a lesson, you'll be that much better at the lesson the next time you teach it. This is true for actors giving a performance too, and when you get right down to it, that's what you're doing. You use the same general skill sets to run a scenario as teach a lesson or perform a scene. (In my opinion, that's why you see so many teachers playing Pathfinder, as well as why so many of us freelancers and designers had our starts in education.)
|
Contributor
|
4. 1 XP, 1.5 prestige and fame, and 80% gold for all subsequent times running a scenario after the first.
This is the answer you have been looking for. This is the lazy curveball over the middle of the plate. This is all upside with almost no downside. I recommend you run the numbers with your business guy and your trusted VCs. This is a winner. All up side. Very little down.
This is essentially what I came up with, except I think the 80% gold is unnecessary. Most vets are worried about unfettered access to boons and unique rewards, not gold. Plus I personally cannot easily calculate 80% of a gold sum in my brain, so this would be a pain in the butt to me, personally. :-P
|
|
Alex: Second paragraph should be '...GM can run/judge a single scenario multiple times...'
This prevents the multiple replay issue while addressing need for multiple runnings and also preventing 'cherry-picking'.
By the time a 'GM credit blob' would be actualized, they'd probably be able to *afford* most non-unique chronicle items anyways, so it'd be akin to running a pregen for a few levels of credit...
|
|
'cherry-picking'.I don't understand why that hyphen is needed. Care to explain?
Because spellcheck said it was?
EDIT: I used run/judge interchangeably there, GMs sometimes use the term 'run' a scenario, but also 'judge'. If there was some way to clean that up there, that's the concern, so it doesn't look like "Oh, I've GM'd this once or twice, and now it's an evergreen for me.."
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
I don't have any problems with Alex's proposal, though I have to say that one of the reasons I enjoy occasionally re-running a game as a GM is that then I don't have to worry about getting a chronicle sheet.
I GM a bit more than I play. I don't want to GM my characters through entire levels. I want to play them. I am also trying to not get my characters too far ahead of those of my boyfriend, Bret. So... I'd probably still refuse to take chronicle credit on re-runs!
Am I weird? Yeah, I suppose I am.
Hmm
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have no problems with the proposed solution but I don't expect it to have very much effect.
In my experience, the GMs who GM the most have SO many replay credits that getting more just isn't much of an issue for them. Most of them like to play their character through most of the levels (except maybe for a dead level here or there).
And the newer GMs who want the credit just find it trivial to run scenarios that they haven't run before.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Yeah, Paul summed up my thoughts on this perfectly. Still, I have nothing against this change if it would actually encourage more GMs. My one concern is that it might make GMs less likely to learn and seek out new scenarios to run.
Though then again, maybe not. This Wednesday, I'm running a scenario I've never run nor played before, in part because I have not seen it run much anywhere lately, and I want my players to be able to find games they haven't played before. Trying to keep players involved and finding new things to do... well, that's motivating too!
Hmm
|
|
Hard to say 'never intended' when it was released to players.
That first release was an unofficial copy created for the player base to vet before going live. That language was never intended to be in the guide.
No Andrew is correct. And the fact that an option that wasn't meant to be presented to players was left in erroneously probably contributed to us not getting draft of the guide released for public vetting after that.
Especially since players still act like free recharge was something they had that was taken away.
|
|
I just don't see any need for unlimited GM credit - even on a single scenario. I GM quite a bit, most of the time I get credit, but not always and that's ok I GM to give back to my community and players and because I enjoy it. Generally if I'm choosing to rerun a scenario it's because I like the scenario enough to rerun it. I've got enough replay credit to do what I want with it most of the time, and I am so far ahead on characters that I'm not concerned about more. (I generally put 5 or 6 sheets of credit on a character (fills out their faction card and means no level 1 play for me) and then never again unless there is some huge reason to do so, i.e. a game I've already played that's perfect for a different character.)
I understand that other locations have more struggles getting people to GM and if this really would help them to do so, then I guess a single scenario that becomes evergreen for a GM is okay with me, but it feels a wonky/contrived overall.
|
|
I don't have any problems with Alex's proposal, though I have to say that one of the reasons I enjoy occasionally re-running a game as a GM is that then I don't have to worry about getting a chronicle sheet.
I GM a bit more than I play. I don't want to GM my characters through entire levels. I want to play them. I am also trying to not get my characters too far ahead of those of my boyfriend, Bret. So... I'd probably still refuse to take chronicle credit on re-runs!
Am I weird? Yeah, I suppose I am.
Hmm
Not that wierd, the former campaign coordinator never took GM credit had 5 stars and 6 characters (his character count is a few posts up)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm at a convention, if I sign up for three slots of GM I should be able to run the same mod 3 times instead of having to run three different mods. It would greatly reduce my prep time and make me better at running that specific mod. But the rules discourage this from happening. At which point possibly I'll say screw it and not DM any mods instead.
|
|
Most of the pushback I see to the idea falls into one of two camps.
Camp 1. No one would ever use it, so why have it?
Camp 2. People would use it too much and abuse it.
For those in camp one, there are an awful lot of people asking for it. It seems like there is a desire for additional GM credit options. And you don't have to take credit if you don't want to.
For those in camp two, I think the reduced rewards would curb the potential for abuse. There will always be people that will game the system, but I feel strongly the benefit outweighs the risk.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
I don't like the idea of reduced gold and prestige on GMing something a second time. At that point, I would rather just not take credit.
I don't mind the idea of not allowing access to boons from the chronicle for a scenario that I've GMed before. You could even remove access to the items on a repeat and it wouldn't bother me. Tampering with the gold and prestige means that the GM baby would be potentially worse than if I had played the character.
Once my character gets to about third level, I usually slow-track any GM credits on them. The reason for this is simple -- I want to play the character, not just build it. I don't mind skipping the first couple of levels, I've struggled through those levels enough over the years. It is when they start to become competent that I don't want to skip anything.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
I'm not in either camp, Kifaru! I want more GMs in PFS. I'm just saying that adding more GM chronicles wouldn't change anything substantially on what I decide to prep for players.
One of the GMs that I know has the following levels for his characters: 19, 6, 14, 11, 8, 10, 10, 16, 8, 17, 12, 1, 1, 14, 8, 3, 1, 4, 3, 2, 2, 2, 8, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2.
Maybe there comes a time when you wonder how many unplayed GM babies you want to create. I feel I already have too many GM babies in my account as it is, though they do allow some flexibility. Oh, a table that I was GMing fell through? I guess I can create a new level 3 right now and join this other table as a player.
However, if it would help others step up more as GMs... great. Go to it!
Hmm
|
|
Hard to say 'never intended' when it was released to players.
That first release was an unofficial copy created for the player base to vet before going live. That language was never intended to be in the guide.
Except it wasn't "released" to players. It was made clear that when that pre-release happened, that it was not official and was sent out simply for vetting purposes.
I believe Mike even admitted publicly that the language for that particular item was meant to be edited before the pre-release but got overlooked.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm at a convention, if I sign up for three slots of GM I should be able to run the same mod 3 times instead of having to run three different mods. It would greatly reduce my prep time and make me better at running that specific mod.
I do that all the time. I once ran The Disappeared four times at one convention. Half the tables succeeded and half failed; it was a blast to see the different solutions each group came up with to overcome their obstacles. And at another convention, I ran two different scenarios three times each. Again, my enjoyment comes from the unique way in which each table plays out. When I volunteer to GM at the FLGS, if the scenario isn't chosen already, I tell the event coordinator to pick the scenario based upon the players' wants and needs and not to worry if it's one I've run before or not.
But my personal preferences may not be shared by many... and I understand that. I don't have a lot of characters (less than a dozen, maybe?) and only one is retired (too high to play any sanctioned content). I'm just not interested in having or playing a multitude of characters; I prefer to slow track my characters when they hit their "sweet spot" and play them as long as possible.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When a GM runs the same scenario repeatedly in the the same community, they saturate the community and make it more difficult for a player at their table to then go on and find players to GM for.
In the lodge I play in, there are many many zero to two star GMs that greatly prefer (or only will) run games that they've played before. So when someone runs the Overflow Archives three times in a month in my community, it means I can't run it after playing at there table because there are no more players left to play it.
Repeated GM credit is something that is good for the individual and good in the short term, but in the long run it hinders the growth of the community. It has a second order effect of reducing the number of GMs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hard to say 'never intended' when it was released to players.
That first release was an unofficial copy created for the player base to vet before going live. That language was never intended to be in the guide.
Except it wasn't "released" to players. It was made clear that when that pre-release happened, that it was not official and was sent out simply for vetting purposes.
I believe Mike even admitted publicly that the language for that particular item was meant to be edited before the pre-release but got overlooked.
My recollection is that
1) It was most definitely NOT promised in the original discussion2) It was, however, stated to be something that they were very,very seriously considering (the implication was that it was far, far more than 50% likely to occur)
3) The pre-release went out with the language in allowing replays to refresh
The combination of 2 and 3 is certainly enough for many people to get the impression that it was something given and then taken away.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People can get credit twice for GMing the same scenario, it's just that one of them has to be in Core mode.
I am 100% against allowing more GM credit on the same scenario than what exists today, as it would break the symmetry between GM and player credit, and lead to renewed calls for replaying for credit (an argument that has been mercifully absent from these boards in recent times).
|
|
When a GM runs the same scenario repeatedly in the the same community, they saturate the community and make it more difficult for a player at their table to then go on and find players to GM for.
In the lodge I play in, there are many many zero to two star GMs that greatly prefer (or only will) run games that they've played before. So when someone runs the Overflow Archives three times in a month in my community, it means I can't run it after playing at there table because there are no more players left to play it.
Repeated GM credit is something that is good for the individual and good in the short term, but in the long run it hinders the growth of the community. It has a second order effect of reducing the number of GMs.
I see this as a community organizer issue. The local VC and others that organize games should be trying to spread out games. But on the other hand, this is an issue I have never seen. I have never heard of anyone fighting over who gets to run a table.
As has been generally established, those that GM a lot aren't really GMing for credit. I would guess this would not greatly impact what the small community of Uber GMs run. But those zero and one star GMs you were talking about? I bet if those new GMs were allowed to run their freshly learned scenarios a couple extra times for credit you might find yourself with a bunch of two and three star GMs on your hands.
|
I'd like to start out with the fact that I'm not a fan of replaying for credit.
The idea of rerunning for credit never occurred to me until I read this post and I was immediately intrigued with the possibilities. When Drogon posted his idea of the separate tracking sheet I liked it.
My first 'contribution' to the discussion comes with a 'flaw' in the system that I've repeatedly encountered at Cons. That is GMs being 'forced' into running a game cold. I'm very much appreciate that people are volunteering their time and effort for my hobby but I generally feel robbed when I sit down at a table and learn that not only has the GM never played the scenario before, but he hasn't run it before either. At that point I'd generally rather they run something else. The quality of the experience is likely to be worse for numerous reasons.
1) Cons already generally suffer from the time crunch and the GM is more likely than not to skip the optional encounter.
2) The less familiar the GM is with the scenario the more likely the GM will have to 'waste' slot time reading the scenario to figure out stuff.
3) The more likely the GM will overlook something that the author included for the express purpose of making the encounter easier (or harder!)
4) The less familiar the GM is with the NPCs (and the monsters) the less role-playing happens and the more roll playing happens.
5) As previously discussed lack of prep increases the 'time crunch' which means that I feel more constrained to limit my own role-playing because that takes time.
Why did I bring this all up. I'd like to see some form of reward for the GMs that ARE rerunning at Cons. If it were limited only to rerunning at Cons it would limit the impact it would have on 'robbing' people in areas with limited player bases the opportunity from running for the first time.
My second comment is that I already dislike applying GM credit to characters because that means one less opportunity to actually play that character. What would be cool and potentially not unbalanced would be to be able to apply re-run credit ONLY the prestige (and/or the gold) but not the xp. In my limited experience prestige is spent on 1) death, 2) vanities (often but not always unlocking a day job role), and 3) wands (and more rarely other consumables). It would be kinda cool to be able to have 2-3 'extra' CLW wands or potions or something to hand out to the fellow characters. (Wow! You wasted your gold on helping everyone else at the table? Well, yes some of that is the character's hard earned cash/prestige but one of those wands was purchased with bonus prestige from GMing.)
My last idea would be for there to be a way for the players to somehow vote for GM rewards. (I realize this would be easy to abuse.. favoritism and tit for tat both come to mind.) I have over the years probably played an equal number of scenarios at a game day (or store) and at cons. I've played under many amazing GMs, and GMed for many amazing players, and played under terrible GMs, and GMed for terrible players. I've seen it all. I wish there were a way to reward the amazing GMs and amazing players. Incentivizing them to play and GM more can only be good for PFS.
Sorry for the long post.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm at a convention, if I sign up for three slots of GM I should be able to run the same mod 3 times instead of having to run three different mods. It would greatly reduce my prep time and make me better at running that specific mod. But the rules discourage this from happening. At which point possibly I'll say screw it and not DM any mods instead.
You can run the same module three times. If it's a small enough convention, though, it probably won't be on the docket three times.
This last year at PaizoCon, I ran Captive in Crystal five times. It's pretty standard.
As a lot of people are saying, most of the time the more experienced GMs (i.e. those with 3+ stars) aren't really all that concerned about additional GM credit any more. Hmm's attitude (I want to play my character, not just GM credit it out) is pretty standard. Yeah, you can find people who disagree, but they're the exception rather than what's most common.
This means that GM credit is mostly a non-issue, even though this thread generates so much debate. New GMs have lots of scenarios they haven't GMed yet, and most of the time are most likely to be operating in an area where the same scenario won't be run multiple times anyway. Once an GM is experienced enough that rerunning a scenario is something more likely to be called for, they probably no longer want GM credit for every single game the GM any more.
I'm not convinced that the exception exist in reality in more than a few cases -- not enough to warrant changing the rules. People argue that they exist in theory, but I'm not convinced that the theory is supported by observation.
|
|
Hard to say 'never intended' when it was released to players.
That first release was an unofficial copy created for the player base to vet before going live. That language was never intended to be in the guide.
Except it wasn't "released" to players. It was made clear that when that pre-release happened, that it was not official and was sent out simply for vetting purposes.
I believe Mike even admitted publicly that the language for that particular item was meant to be edited before the pre-release but got overlooked.
My recollection is that
1) It was most definitely NOT promised in the original discussion
2) It was, however, stated to be something that they were very,very seriously considering (the implication was that it was far, far more than 50% likely to occur)
3) The pre-release went out with the language in allowing replays to refreshThe combination of 2 and 3 is certainly enough for many people to get the impression that it was something given and then taken away.
2) They were considering it. It was most certainly not "very, very serious" or anywhere near "far, far more than 50% likely to occur". It was a neutral statement indicating that they wanted to see replays operate for an entire season and revisit the discussion at the end of the season. It was on the table, and that was it.
3) The language was never supposed to hit public consumption. It was an error that the public got to see that as a possibility.
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free star recharges for everyone!
You know, of all the suggestions in this thread, this is the one I like the best. I'm in a con-rich area. I got two race boons before I even got my first star. I GM at cons all the time, and don't have to travel more than a hour to do so. BNW is not in a con-rich area. Why should I have 8 chances a year to earn expanded narrative, while he has to travel to Gencon to do so?
I don't think it would break the system too much if we opened up that boon to the entire GM base.
Hmm
|
|
I have never heard of anyone fighting over who gets to run a table.
Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Now, I'm not necessarily "fighting" anyone over GMing duties, but there have been countless times when I've known I'm free and available to GM on a certain game day well in advance of said game day, looked at the schedule and discovered every table has a GM. Then I'll look at the following week... same thing. Sometimes, I have to look more than a month out in order to find a table to GM.
Honestly, it's just never crossed my mind to ask if any of those GMs would like to step aside and let me run their table instead, but I suppose I could start.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Free star recharges for everyone!You know, of all the suggestions in this thread, this is the one I like the best.
What about a compromise? Assign star replays to both playing and GMing (you get twice your number of stars to use for replays; half are only usable for playing, the other half are only for GMing). Limit lifetime player replays for credit to number of stars. Rechargeable with a boon or some other earned mechanic. Limit yearly GM replays for credit to number of stars. Rechargeable each season.
|
|
I have never heard of anyone fighting over who gets to run a table.Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Now, I'm not necessarily "fighting" anyone over GMing duties, but there have been countless times when I've known I'm free and available to GM on a certain game day well in advance of said game day, looked at the schedule and discovered every table has a GM. Then I'll look at the following week... same thing. Sometimes, I have to look more than a month out in order to find a table to GM.
We sort of have this in our area too, although perhaps not quite to that degree. GM slots usually tend to fill up pretty fast, though.
|
|
If I'm at a convention, if I sign up for three slots of GM I should be able to run the same mod 3 times instead of having to run three different mods. It would greatly reduce my prep time and make me better at running that specific mod. But the rules discourage this from happening. At which point possibly I'll say screw it and not DM any mods instead.
You'll probably find that the more you GM the more your viewpoint tends to skew away from this. I had this very view when I first started GMing. I wanted to get credit for each and every scenario so I could level up my characters. But nowadays I'm sitting on (rough count)
-A level 11 ball of GM Credit that I have a rough idea what I want to do with
-A level 9 ball of GM Credit that I have no idea what to do with
-A level 6 credit baby that I've fully prepped up but not had a chance to play yet
-3 or 4 GM credit characters in the level 2 to 4 range
-Several other characters in the level 5-12 range that started out as GM credit characters but have been played several times since then.
I don't care if I get credit or not on a character nowadays. I GM because I like to GM, so at a convention I try to sign up for multiples of the same scenario.
|
|
I've mostly avoided the "GM credit baby" characters. I had one character who was first played at level 3, and am currently working on one that will first play at level 4. And, I have a bunch that will start at level 2. Mostly, though, I try to spread my GM credits between my characters so I get to play all of them at least sometimes.
|
|
I have never heard of anyone fighting over who gets to run a table.Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Now, I'm not necessarily "fighting" anyone over GMing duties, but there have been countless times when I've known I'm free and available to GM on a certain game day well in advance of said game day, looked at the schedule and discovered every table has a GM. Then I'll look at the following week... same thing. Sometimes, I have to look more than a month out in order to find a table to GM.
Honestly, it's just never crossed my mind to ask if any of those GMs would like to step aside and let me run their table instead, but I suppose I could start.
Tangent - I've had success messaging GMs that are running tables that I've played and saying 'I've played that scenario but have never ran it, I can GM if you have not played it yet'.
|
|
I've mostly avoided the "GM credit baby" characters. I had one character who was first played at level 3, and am currently working on one that will first play at level 4. And, I have a bunch that will start at level 2. Mostly, though, I try to spread my GM credits between my characters so I get to play all of them at least sometimes.
I go almost entirely the other way, personally. I don't really enjoy playing level one so almost all of my characters start with 5 or 6 GM credits on them before I even build them (though I've now got a stockpile of like 5 or 6 that haven't even been played yet)
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've already given GMs the following benefits as people cried out that we needed to incentivize GMing:
- GM Stars boon sheet
- GM Stars & bonus to re-rolls
- Full chronicle, regardless of what the PCs earned
- GM boons at Cons and other events
How much more do we need? Unlimited GM credit, as previously posted, may alleviate a short-term GM issue, but will create long-term GM issues.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're running that often the credit isn't an incentive
Speak for yourself.
-The advent of GM rewards on Faction Cards has made me want to get 5(!) GM credits on each character I build.
-The ability to make "GM lobs" as the detractors say opens up a lotore design space. Characters who don't really work until a level 3 class ability or you get access to 2nd level spells or you get your 6th level first step into a prestige class are now something you can consider building, crediting up, and skipping the boring 'I can do 1d4+2' levels.
-There's incentive to run colder. I get credit for running new stuff. I don't get credit for running something I have prepared and have run before, with annotations and experience enhancing the run-through.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
I have 35 characters, and my GM credits do pad up my levels a bit, though with the exception of my (Courtisan) character, I do try to play them at least once at each level.
I would have a hell of a time denoting every GM Cred if I get credit for every single game instead of just the first runs and evergreens.
I believe I will try to retire a couple more characters before I create new characters beyond number 35.
|
|
I have never heard of anyone fighting over who gets to run a table.Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Now, I'm not necessarily "fighting" anyone over GMing duties, but there have been countless times when I've known I'm free and available to GM on a certain game day well in advance of said game day, looked at the schedule and discovered every table has a GM. Then I'll look at the following week... same thing. Sometimes, I have to look more than a month out in order to find a table to GM.
Honestly, it's just never crossed my mind to ask if any of those GMs would like to step aside and let me run their table instead, but I suppose I could start.
You know, your absolute right. I am in no way "in the loop" when it comes to GMs vs Available Tables. I only GM online and am barely a 1 star GM. I guess the GM:Table ratio only comes to my attention when I hear a call out to GMs because of difficulty finding a GM to run a table. Or, as is more often the case, I can't play a game I would like because there are way more players looking for a seat than GMs willing to run. I was under the impression that we had a shortage of GMs and encouraging more would be a good thing. This was entirely conjecture on my part. Apparently that is not the case. But are people seriously arguing that there is an overabundance of GMs and the development of new GMs should be discouraged? Seriously?
|
Some areas have an abundance of GMs. Some have a shortage. Online, I think the number of players just far outnumbers the number of people willing to GM. And, a lot of times the request for a game online is prompted by players looking for a GM. If that happens face to face, someone from the group of players can just volunteer to run and draw maps out as they go. Online requires more setup. Also at a regular gameday, it's a set schedule known usually well ahead of time.
I don't know if we need more incentives for GMs or not. But more people willing to GM in general is a good thing.
I tend to GM credit characters to 2nd level. I've had 2 that I got all the way to 4th either through GM credit or AP credit, and used those for more complicated builds. And I'll use GM credit when I need to boost a character that takes a hit from dying or a failed scenario or something along those lines. It's nice to have the option to use a GM chronicle, but it's not the main reason I run.
|
|
Kifaru, please don't get me wrong. I wasn't discounting your opinion in anyway; I was just offering my personal experience as an anecdotal counter to yours. I recognize that mine may be an unusual situation in that I have difficulty finding tables that lack a GM.
But let me ask you this. Of those games in which you could not participate because no GMs were willing to run, is it because all of those potential GMs had already run the scenario and didn't want to run it again for no credit?
I agree that more players should step in to GM and I can agree that incentivizing that could make that happen. However, I believe there are more players who haven't GMed and won't than there are GMs who have, but won't re-GM for no credit.
Unlimited anything is always open to potential abuse, which is why I can't support unlimited GM credit. But I can support increased GM credit or other GM incentives.
I just don't believe a lack of GMs for a given scenario is because everyone in the pool of potential GMs has already run said scenario. If that's true, something's wrong with the frequency that repeated scenarios are scheduled at your venue.
Just as someone suggested I speak with the scheduled GMs at my venues to see if any would step aside and let me GM, might I suggest those that want to GM for credit ask their event coordinators to schedule alternate scenarios for which they can get credit.
|
|
Maybe the difference I see comes from online play. Setting up maps and macros for an online game is pretty time intensive. Once you have things set up it's actually pretty easy to run a second time. The issue I've come up against is scenarios that don't get run because the effort to build the table isn't worth the effort when you only get credit once. I have had multiple GMs tell me this when I've inquired about various games.