|
This is why the first level of the Emerald Spire is so popular, at least in online play. It's a short evergreen module that jumps you to second level. I think I could offer to run it twice a week and never run out of people who want space at the table. The only time I've failed to make a table is when I offered to run it at midnight on a weekday with 2 hours notice. And the previous week I offered to run it at midnight with 2 hours notice we filled the table in minutes.
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Virtue is its own reward. There's a pleasure in doing good which sufficiently pays itself.
I hate this statement (and the similar, "Good is its own reward"). Not because there is anything inherently wrong with the statement. When one applies this statement to one's self it is a beautifully altruistic philosophy. No, I dislike it because far too many times it is used as a justification for a group of people to tell someone they should do something that benefits that group without that group having to reward them for it. In which case it becomes an ugly, selfish and hypocritical philosophy. So if anyone thinks of hurling such statements at someone because they are reluctant to do something without reward, "Don't." They're not the ones being selfish for refusing to do something that benefits you for free. You are the one being selfish for refusing to reward them for something that benefits you.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe we should instead look at changing the XP system: maybe allow players to get "triple credit" for playing a scenario with a new character at level 1 - allow characters to level to two after their first scenario?
I strongly recommend that we stick with the 1 xp/scenario, 3 xp/level model starting at first level. I have run a lot of tables of newer players who need to have that learning curve before advancing levels and facing greater challenges. Experienced players don't need that, and so I have no problems with GM credits allowing someone to skip some levels. I do it myself on some characters that I don't think will be fun at first and second level, although I usually try to play at least one scenario at each level in order to get a feel for the character's development.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what exactly to you believe is toxic about the reduced reward system I have proposed? I understand that full unlimited replay credit could quickly cause problems from those that would abuse it. But I am much less convinced the reduced award system would have the same kind of effects. There would be no boons or special equipment to disrupt games. While I've gotten very little support for the idea, I have also recommended reduced gold and prestige to bring things more in line with what the players would have for gold and prestige after a few levels. What about this system would be damaging to play. In what way would it be toxic?Do we need more GMs? I couldn't agree more. Would I like us to offer something that incentivises volunteering to GM for the first few sessions or more? You bet. But it cannot be done on the back of the entire campaign. Unlimited replays have proven toxic in the past. I'm willing to bet it remains toxic today.
Well, there are a couple of things. One, it opens the door for the same form of replay to be offered for players. In the interest of fairness, why wouldn't they be eligible for the same treatment? Sure we spend time and money on prep, but they spend time and money too! Perhaps not to the same extent, but at that point, the door is open.
Two, who will track that GMs are properly giving themselves the right amount of credit? We have to be fairly trustworthy in this living campaign, but that is a little too much. I'd be afraid of screwing up. How does that integrate with audits? If there's a problem, how high does this go to get resolved? My GM applied the wrong credit, do I spend the rest of my time with him or her wondering if he or she is a cheat or just bad at keeping track of things? I know that there is always a period where things get complicated with the addition of something new, but if there's that much complexity added, is it really worth it?
Three, the same scenario being offered again and again was one of the things that killed LFR. It'll be just as damaging with even a limited GM replay credit because less new scenarios are being offered by GMs who want to take advantage of this credit. Also, as possibly an aside, that strawman argument? I can all too well imagine it coming to life as described. Don't believe it? I couldn't believe there were people out there with 40 Aasimar/Tieflings stockpiled away with 1 xp. Yet it happened.
I hope this gives you some insight as to some of the big reasons I don't like this idea. Now allow me to ask you a question. Why do you appear not to consider a non-credit reward as adequate? If it gives you a free Knowledge check, or a bonus on a check, or maybe a limited use item, isn't that just as good an incentive?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is why the first level of the Emerald Spire is so popular, at least in online play. It's a short evergreen module that jumps you to second level. I think I could offer to run it twice a week and never run out of people who want space at the table. The only time I've failed to make a table is when I offered to run it at midnight on a weekday with 2 hours notice. And the previous week I offered to run it at midnight with 2 hours notice we filled the table in minutes.
I have to admit I don't think this is healthy.
There is some value in the evergreens, yes. It's nice to be able to get a character started with Confirmation, and there is some built-in variety there to keep it from being the same old every time. Still, after playing it 3 or 4 times, I find myself I'm not interested in playing it any more. (I can run it over and over again, but I'm less interested in playing.)
Emerald Spire 1 is a little more insidious because it only takes as along as a scenario to play or run, but you get 3xp out of it.
If people are playing this more than a few times, it starts to be farming. You've found the highest pay-off in experience for the least time invested. It's similar to what happened with those "speed-runs" of "Master of the Fallen Fortress" back during aasimarpalooza.
Yes, you could say, why care about people's fun if it's not your fun? So if their fun is getting to high level as fast as possible rather than playing, why does that bother you? The reason it bothers me is that it hurts the campaign. If you have people playing that way, when people show up who want to actually play, they find they are at great odds with how everybody else is playing. Longer term, the campaign is more healthy if people are in it for the playing, not for the levelling up. Grinding and farming levels gets boring after a while, and people will drift away; playing can stay fresh forever.
So, I have to admit, I don't think it's a great thing that so many people are so eager to replay the first level of Emerald Spire so many times.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is why the first level of the Emerald Spire is so popular, at least in online play. It's a short evergreen module that jumps you to second level. I think I could offer to run it twice a week and never run out of people who want space at the table. The only time I've failed to make a table is when I offered to run it at midnight on a weekday with 2 hours notice. And the previous week I offered to run it at midnight with 2 hours notice we filled the table in minutes.I have to admit I don't think this is healthy.
There is some value in the evergreens, yes. It's nice to be able to get a character started with Confirmation, and there is some built-in variety there to keep it from being the same old every time. Still, after playing it 3 or 4 times, I find myself I'm not interested in playing it any more. (I can run it over and over again, but I'm less interested in playing.)
Emerald Spire 1 is a little more insidious because it only takes as along as a scenario to play or run, but you get 3xp out of it.
If people are playing this more than a few times, it starts to be farming. You've found the highest pay-off in experience for the least time invested. It's similar to what happened with those "speed-runs" of "Master of the Fallen Fortress" back during aasimarpalooza.
Yes, you could say, why care about people's fun if it's not your fun? So if their fun is getting to high level as fast as possible rather than playing, why does that bother you? The reason it bothers me is that it hurts the campaign. If you have people playing that way, when people show up who want to actually play, they find they are at great odds with how everybody else is playing. Longer term, the campaign is more healthy if people are in it for the playing, not for the levelling up. Grinding and farming levels gets boring after a while, and people will drift away; playing can stay fresh forever.
So, I have to admit, I don't think it's a great thing that so many people are so eager to...
I don't think you have to worry about people refusing to play 1-5s with new players. Many people here are espousing "issues" that I have never seen and couldn't imagine happening honestly. No one is going to farm GM scenarios, I'd go crazy if I had to read the same thing 15 weeks in a row.
I don't blame players for wanting to skip first level. It sucks. It's awful to play. And PFS can't really fix it more than the evergreens allow, people using them for that purpose makes sense to me. I'm happy to play 1-5s with new players all day, I'll be doing it with level 2+ more than half the time, but that has never been a problem and we're never off leveling out more level twos during Game Day, it's something we set aside for a weekend with drinks and greasy food, a more casual affair. Something that our GM stable participates in to relax and get some character projects started. People have villainized this to a ridiculous degree to me. It's not like your fellow gamers are vampires behind the screen attempting to nefariously ruin the campaign.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The people on this thread are trying to discuss the value of a possible change. I believe you are a 5 star GM, and I feel your experience could be quite worthwhile. I understand that in debates emotions can run high. I didn't take the insults personally. I assume in person you would never be so impolite. I implore you to continue the discussion, but please I would request that you refrain from further personal attacks.
I'm pretty direct. So I suspect you would have received the same comments in person. But tone and visual cues matter so much in conversation, so you would have also seen genuine interest in the things you are saying. Which, I'm sure, is true of your side as well.
I apologize for attributing a poor attitude to you. :-)
A (very brief) history of my dislike of replay credit:
I'm utterly opposed to it. Many would call it bias; I call it a non-negotiable consideration. Despite this I have bent, many times, in those negotiations (which occur regularly as certain players ask for it repeatedly). I now believe that this cannot bend very much more before it breaks.
The reason I point this out:
The same players who want replay credit will not stand for a system in which GMs get character credit for re-running scenarios (no matter how "partial" that credit is) while they cannot get any consideration for replaying the scenarios that are currently limited to one play per person. And they shouldn't. Unequal entitlement is not a healthy way to promote a program.
I firmly believe that PFS will not survive the slide in to replay. Rehashing my reasons can be done, but I hope you don't find that necessary. Enabling re-run credits for GMs is another step onto that slide.
However, I will acknowledge the issues many have with getting GMs to run things more than once (and have already stated such, way back at the beginning of this thread and again, later on).
Here are some of the ways I can think of to reward GMs for re-running that have been discussed in this thread:
- Allow GMs to check off the "GM this scenario" boxes on the Faction Journal cards despite not getting character credit. LINK and LINK
- Create another tracking card that opens up rewards dependent on the number of times you have run a scenario.LINK and LINK and again LINK
- Add a boon to scenario chronicles that unlocks varying things based on the number of times the GM has run the scenario. LINK and LINK
- Allow GMs to assign a re-GM chronicle to a 1st level PC, and only to a 1st level PC. LINK
- Allow GM stars to recharge each season, but allow the recharge to apply only to re-run scenarios. LINK
This is probably not exhaustive, but it's what I could find right now. Early on in this thread the discussion was robust, and John and Tonya posted, as well. I think an expectation that GMs get something for running without character credit is a not-unreasonable expectation. And I think you will see it implemented sooner than later. But I also think you will get far more traction with your requests if you leave unfettered character credit (again, no matter how "limited" the gp and/or xp may be) off the list.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, here's the response that I should have used to a quote about virtue and payment......
"Now I did a job; and got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character. So let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job and then I get paid."
When the only GMs you can get are mercenary GMs I'd say it's time for the campaign to close up shop.
|
After much heated debate in private channels and consideration, I'm comfortable supporting the idea of taking a GM credit and applying it down to first level, as is possible with credits already. I'm comfortable with GMs being able to skip first level, especially if they're willing to forgo the boons and items, preventing those from being farmed.
I propose the following rules-style text and simple explanation:
"Subsequent GM credits for the same scenario can be applied as first level credit only, with available items and boons crossed out."
Or:
"If you've GM'd this more than once, cross out the boons and items, put 500 for gold, 2 for prestige, and 1 for XP and assign it to a level 1 character."
|
|
My issue with that would be creating additional rules. The above makes use of a rule that is already written and balanced and most people are at least vaguely familiar with. Incorporating additional gold values requires calculation and more information being included, as well as possible confusion over its existence - people may think that the level 2 and 3 values are applicable to other types of credit as well. Best to just not bother.
Level 2 is survivable at least, doesn't leave you with incomplete gear (not being able to buy your preferred armor at 0xp) and gets the second level for those multi-class builds. With the abundance of 1-5s and being only 3xp from 3-7s, I don't think that level 2 or 3 credit would be necessary and would only confuse things.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Would you be at all open to applying credit to as high as maybe 3rd level? Mainly because a stable of a couple dozen 1st level characters is just depressing. Or is that a 'bridge to far' for you?
Like Keith said, you can get them to level 2. The suggestion is not that it has to be the very first chronicle; only that it has be be on a 1st level PC.
By the way, for the record: This is another "bend" toward replay. Even this little bit makes me nervous. I truly hope that replay proponents do not see this as the rallying cry that I worry they will see it as. I think this should be the final option, implemented after all others prove too costly, time-consuming, or unwieldy. And, obviously, no idea should be implemented if Paizo staff feels it is not necessary.
I would love to see more ideas that do not involve character credit.
|
|
The reason I point this out:
The same players who want replay credit will not stand for a system in which GMs get character credit for re-running scenarios (no matter how "partial" that credit is) while they cannot get any consideration for replaying the scenarios that are currently limited to one play per person. And they shouldn't. Unequal entitlement is not a healthy way to promote a program.
This strikes me as a false equivalency. GMs are already allowed to run the same scenario over and over if they wish. Once a player has played a game they not allowed to keep replaying. The answer for this is simple. A GM that has extensive knowledge of a scenario can provide a richer, more vibrant and fuller experience for the players. A player with advanced knowledge of a scenario detracts from the experience for all that are at the table.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A player can replay a scenario for no-credit, if it's necessary to make a table. (I've done this at least once, and have been at several tables where others have done it.) This exactly the same as the case for GMs now.
But, also, Drogon is speaking from experience here. Whether or not it's right for people to call for expanded player replay if there's expanded GM multiple credit, people will call for it, pointing at expanded GM multiple credit as the reason; and, there will be some who will take that as a valid argument. (Drogon, for instance, has indicated that he would.) So, yes, expanding GM credit for scenarios would be a bend towards expanded replay.
I'm still not convinced there's a real problem that this would solve, however. Yeah, there aren't enough GMs in some areas (ncluding online) Would expanded GM repeat credit really make much of a dent in that? I doubt it. It would make some dent, sure, but not enough to be worth the long-term costs to the campaign, and probably not even all that much in an absolute sense.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, for the record: This is another "bend" toward replay. Even this little bit makes me nervous. I truly hope that replay proponents do not see this as the rallying cry that I worry they will see it as. I think this should be the final option, implemented after all others prove too costly, time-consuming, or unwieldy. And, obviously, no idea should be implemented if Paizo staff feels it is not necessary.
I would love to see more ideas that do not involve character credit.
Drogon, I certainly understand as I was involved in LG some, but I think you're waving the fear flag a bit too much - especially when you seem to be implying that somehow we could pressure this into effect past the Paizo staff.
This conversation has come down quite a bit from the initial request and has even removed many of the issues that plagued LG back in the day - each time you GM it would be just a blank 1XP/2PP/500G 1st level voucher and nothing else. Most people (if not all) understand the issue with getting infinite <x> or infinite <y>, one for every character.
It would make some dent, sure, but not enough to be worth the long-term costs to the campaign, and probably not even all that much in an absolute sense.
I'm curious of the long term costs you're referring to. We'll have a cost of implementing and drafting the documents to make it official, sure. There may be another forum thread or three demanding that players get infinite replays, but I hardly think that's a cost. If players are going to leave because they can't, I'm comfortable allowing that. On the other hand, if it makes GMs happier to GM and improves their GMing from running a scenario even two or three times as opposed to once, I see that as a great benefit.
Locally I've run Scions of the Sky Key in its entirety 3 times (including its prequel) and I'm getting ready to do it a 4th time. I'm doing it without credit, of course, because I love running, but I've gotten better at it each time. I know I'm giving players a better experience every time. If such an allowance would lead to more such improvement from GMs that run something once then dump it, then I think it's good for the campaign.
|
|
After much heated debate in private channels and consideration, I'm comfortable supporting the idea of taking a GM credit and applying it down to first level, as is possible with credits already. I'm comfortable with GMs being able to skip first level, especially if they're willing to forgo the boons and items, preventing those from being farmed.
I propose the following rules-style text and simple explanation:
"Subsequent GM credits for the same scenario can be applied as first level credit only, with available items and boons crossed out."Or:
"If you've GM'd this more than once, cross out the boons and items, put 500 for gold, 2 for prestige, and 1 for XP and assign it to a level 1 character."
Initially I considered this idea to be insufficient, but now that I've been kicking it around my nogin for a bit, I think this is something I could get behind.
Now, to be honest, there are ulterior motives behind my support. I'd like to see this implemented as a test run for a season. If it causes the feared disruptions, it could be discontinued. But, if it runs smoothly it could alleviate some of the deep concerns many are holding. If that happens, I would then lobby that the idea of expanding to 2nd or 3rd level characters be revisited.
My only fear at that point is that others would start lobbying for 4th level and then 5th level and so on. That would be something I would be less able to support.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
This strikes me as a false equivalency.The reason I point this out:
The same players who want replay credit will not stand for a system in which GMs get character credit for re-running scenarios (no matter how "partial" that credit is) while they cannot get any consideration for replaying the scenarios that are currently limited to one play per person. And they shouldn't. Unequal entitlement is not a healthy way to promote a program.
You are entirely correct.
Replay proponents won't care about the differences.
Drogon, I certainly understand as I was involved in LG some, but I think you're waving the fear flag a bit too much - especially when you seem to be implying that somehow we could pressure this into effect past the Paizo staff.
I don't see it as a fear flag. I see it as an eventuality that needs to be understood in order to be prepared for. Honestly, I made the post so I have something to refer to if and when the replay argument comes up.
And in no way do I think we could pressure Paizo staff to do something they don't want to do. Again, realistic expectations need to be stated, else the discussion devolves into presumptions being made that may not ever be realized.
|
|
I played exactly 1 Living Greyhawk game, so I'm not familiar with the replay issues that campaign suffered. Here is what I have seen, though, in PFS, to do with replay for credit.
* GMs preferentially running (and only signing up for) Free RPG Day "modules" or Emerald Spire/Thornkeep because they count for 2 GM credits toward stars (which count towards an in-game bonus on re-rolls)
* GMs running scenarios cold - not because it was a last minute game, but because they couldn't be bothered to prep and just wanted the Chronicle or the Con boon for GMs. (Happily, I only know of two "confirmed" cases of this, from back when I was organizing cons.)
* GM's running evergreens several times a night to benefit from the "replayablility for credit without prep" aspect. (cf. Aasimarpalooza, as someone else called it)
Personally, I can't think of any other legal replayability issue that *could* be abused beyond this. Some people will abuse it, and it will hurt the campaign.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see this implemented as a test run for a season. If it causes the feared disruptions, it could be discontinued.
Taking something away from people is significantly harder than implementing the correct procedure in the first place. For reference, see the ongoing debate about GM star-recharges. Even though this was never something that was promised, and was mistakenly not edited out of a *preview draft* version of the GtoPFSOP, people still see this as something that was taken away, and regularly bring this up. For further reference, see the complaints that come up every time Paizo releases hardcover errata and "takes away" components of the game. If you need even more proof, let's talk about aasimar and tieflings a bit.
Implement it, or don't. But if you implement it, do it properly so that it does not need to be taken away.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My only fear at that point is that others would start lobbying for 4th level and then 5th level and so on. That would be something I would be less able to support.
And this is the point - everyone draws that line in a different place. I know folks who would be happy with this applying to all levels, which you say you are less able to support. That's how I feel with replay in general. So, how do we make everyone happy?
It's simple: we don't. Ignore what individuals want, and the powers that be make the best decision for the overall campaign. Which they have, every year so far, even though a small fraction of vocal people are always asking for more (replay, GM credits, star recharge, scenarios, whatever).
Anyway, I'm not going to continue to try and convince folks that replay is a bad thing. I trust Tonya and the Paizo crew to do what's best for the campaign, since only they know what tings are like on a global scale.
|
|
I'd like to see this implemented as a test run for a season. If it causes the feared disruptions, it could be discontinued.Taking something away from people is significantly harder than implementing the correct procedure in the first place. For reference, see the ongoing debate about GM star-recharges. Even though this was never something that was promised, and was mistakenly not edited out of a *preview draft* version of the GtoPFSOP, people still see this as something that was taken away, and regularly bring this up. For further reference, see the complaints that come up every time Paizo releases hardcover errata and "takes away" components of the game. If you need even more proof, let's talk about aasimar and tieflings a bit.
Implement it, or don't. But if you implement it, do it properly so that it does not need to be taken away.
Proper language would need to be in place well in advance of any implementation. It would need to be clearly presented in a manner similar to that of a playtest. People are much less bothered by changes that they are informed of well in advance.
In fact, I would actually only put it in place for 6 months. Have a scheduled beginning and end of the test run. Start it the first of September and run it through the end of February. This gives a 6 month sample set to see what the repercussions are and another 6 months for the Paizo decision makers to contemplate before the start of the next season.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does this represent any consensus amongst VO's, out of curiosity? Or is this a personal opinion?
I wouldn't speak for anyone else involved - I'm don't think it was consensus for sure, but it was a good discussion of potential flaws and concerns as well as a way to get the heat out of the discussion so I could consider exactly how I wanted to portray my support.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In fact, I would actually only put it in place for 6 months. Have a scheduled beginning and end of the test run. Start it the first of September and run it through the end of February. This gives a 6 month sample set to see what the repercussions are and another 6 months for the Paizo decision makers to contemplate before the start of the next season.
I dunno, man. This feels like an Aasimarpalooza FUBAR just waiting to happen, to me. Way too many things could go wrong with this scenario, I think.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Proper language would need to be in place well in advance of any implementation. It would need to be clearly presented in a manner similar to that of a playtest. People are much less bothered by changes that they are informed of well in advance.
Alas, the campaign staff has learned that informing the player base of changes in advance leads to undesirable player behavior -- even when they explicitly say "please don't do this". Back when aasimars and tieflings were discontinued, there was a rush amongst a small number of players to speed-run Master of the Fallen Fortress or Confirmation over and over again so as to bank aasimars and tieflings before the cutoff. This was exacty what John's blog post asked folks not to do.
Since then, the campaign leadership (understandably) has not given the player base much if any warning before implementing changes.
The lesson is, if something can be abused while remaining technically legal, it will be abused.
|
|
I dunno, man. This feels like an Aasimarpalooza FUBAR just waiting to happen, to me. Way too many things could go wrong with this scenario, I think.
If anyone wanted to pump out Kitsune before they die in 2017 (just an example, I have no information as of such) they would just go through Emerald Spire 1 so they were all level 2.
I can't find anything that you could do with this new rule that you couldn't do already - Evergreens for level 1 credit (that the players that you must report in for the table to count also get credit for) or other scenarios for level 1 credit (where you need to run different scenarios so the players can continue to get credit, or find a new table of players each time).
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It makes everything you've already run an "evergreen level 1" adventure, but only for a short time. Thus, the reverse incentive would actually hold sway: GM's would want to get in all their re-GM credits before they were no longer available, and would be unwilling to run new adventures (not everyone, of course, but you see my point I hope). I know that in my stores, if I were unable to get GMs to run new scenarios for a six month stretch, I would have a hard time keeping consistent game days going.
That's one example, and one I think is very likely, really.
|
|
I just don't see everyone rushing to GM the same thing again and again any more than they rush to GM evergreens again and again - especially with ES1 being the same length as a scenario for 3x the reward and available now.
Locally, I could actually see a benefit - people pulling out things that they ran years ago to run again (thus putting it back in rotation) or someone who visits multiple stores running the same scenario at each one, so multiple groups got a chance to play it.
Though, we do have 6 stores and 200+ regulars.
Edit: Also of note - if the GM doesn't get players, they don't get credit... they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Locally, I could actually see a benefit - people pulling out things that they ran years ago to run again (thus putting it back in rotation) or someone who visits multiple stores running the same scenario at each one, so multiple groups got a chance to play it.
This is the benefit to implementing the idea. So, as I said, implement it correctly and don't bother taking it away.
Edit: Also of note - if the GM doesn't get players, they don't get credit... they'd be shooting themselves in the foot.
I recruit GMs ahead of my game days. I pick the scenarios to be run. I usually offer the two newest adventures at 6 out of the 12 tables I offer, and choose recent adventures otherwise, with the occasional sprinkling of "classic" adventures. But if no GM wants to take the new stuff because he is now always able to get credit on older stuff he's already run, I will have a fight on my hands to get those 6 of 12 tables helmed. It's already sometimes a chore, as I find that most of my GMs prefer to run something they've already either played or run before (thus, the "eat a scenario" problem that Hmm pointed out above).
Like I said already, it'll be a problem for me that I would rather not see.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I'm in the camp of full on replay credit for players and GM. Mostly because I've got 20+ local players that simply can't play much together because of the complicated web of "already played/GM-Ed" problem. I'm aware it's unlikely to happen.
I don't think GM replay is needed. I already do everything I can to re-GM something I've done prior so I don't have to add it to a GM blob.
|
|
Implement it, or don't. But if you implement it, do it properly so that it does not need to be taken away.
it seems like the vast majority of 4 and 5 star dms hit conventions anyway, so that they already have per annum star recharges. I doubt spreading the wealth to the boonies would have a whole lot of impact besides some happy banjo music.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
it seems like the vast majority of 4 and 5 star dms hit conventions anyway, so that they already have per annum star recharges. I doubt spreading the wealth to the boonies would have a whole lot of impact besides some happy banjo music.
Implement it, or don't. But if you implement it, do it properly so that it does not need to be taken away.
O.o
Whatchu talkin'bout, BNW?
You either quoted the wrong thing or I'm terrible at writing, because that's not what I was discussing.
Edit: I suppose it's possible you have a "convention" twitch equal to my "replay" twitch...
Re-Edit: I see. You're saying GMs can do this already due to star-recharges. I'm still alluding to a different problem, but can see your point. I still think that an annual 4-5 star re-charge doesn't compare to a 6 month run of All The Creditz, especially if that 6 months doesn't count against star re-charges.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So new players should 'pay their dues' due to some 'bad game design'?
Given that this is a thread on GM recruitment, I should probably poibt out tgst "If you GM three times your next character can skip level one" is actually a potent recruitment tool.
But, in practice, many players seem to grab an evergreen or rebuild their character significantly.
|
|
As a relatively new GM I don’t rerun many scenarios. I can see that in the future of rerunning games it could become taxing. But not in the sense of toxic but more of just wanting to build my own characters up even with just a small boon like the Pathfinder Tales chronicles. Or from earlier posts a special rerun chronicle sheet would be good. (And Drogon most nicely reposted #359)
I would say maybe every 20 reruns get a replay or a free large pizza would be nice.
As for players wanting reruns I have a GREAT path they can take, GMing. When they have a couple of 6th level characters its time for them to think about GMing. And every player that can (not everyone can do it) should GM 10% of the time, in my opinion.
|
|
As a relatively new GM I don’t rerun many scenarios. I can see that in the future of rerunning games it could become taxing. But not in the sense of toxic but more of just wanting to build my own characters up even with just a small boon like the Pathfinder Tales chronicles. Or from earlier posts a special rerun chronicle sheet would be good. (And Drogon most nicely reposted #359)
I would say maybe every 20 reruns get a replay or a free large pizza would be nice.
As for players wanting reruns I have a GREAT path they can take, GMing. When they have a couple of 6th level characters its time for them to think about GMing. And every player that can (not everyone can do it) should GM 10% of the time, in my opinion.
*IF* being allowed to GM isn't being treated as a 'special treat' in given areas.
*IF* someone *has the TIME* to GM.
*IF* someone has the *resources* to GM.
These factors need to be considered, among other things.
Not everyone can afford to attend conventions. Not everyone can afford to be online 24/7 (or some reasonable percentage thereof). Not everyone can afford to frequent the LGS for two or three game nights a week. To effectively punish individuals who have limited opportunity to GM is a recursive method of reducing the GM pool.