Proposed Rule Change for Season 8: Unlimited GM Credits


Pathfinder Society

401 to 450 of 462 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
4/5 *

Keith Apperson wrote:
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 (...)

My point exactly: you might not see it, but other areas do. It has happened, it is happening, and it will happen more if more options are added to enable it.

Keith Apperson wrote:
(...)especially with ES1 being the same length as a scenario for 3x the reward and available now.

You're right on this part, though - but then, I've long said we should deal with this by making ES and Free RPG Day "modules" only worth the same XP as a scenario.

ES *is* preferentially run, which makes it harder to have newbie-friendly games at the same venue for several reasons. First, many of the more experienced players who want the challenge of playing ES would otherwise being GMing games; second, ES is definitely *not* a great introduction to PFS. (No offense to Lisa - it's a great module level, but it wasn't written for PFS and doesn't have any real connection to the Society. It's also pretty hard on certain character builds due to special rules.)

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

For all the talk of ES1 being 'preferentially run', I've seen *exactly one time* where I could play it, when it was 'squeezed in' during a pre-PaizoCon slot by a very kindly gm from the East Coast.

So some small percentage of folks may be able to capitalize on it being played multiple times, but that does *not* hold water based on my experience, at least?

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


For all the talk of ES1 being 'preferentially run', I've seen *exactly one time* where I could play it, when it was 'squeezed in' during a pre-PaizoCon slot by a very kindly gm from the East Coast.

So some small percentage of folks may be able to capitalize on it being played multiple times, but that does *not* hold water based on my experience, at least?

Same here. I guess I should put this on the schedule...

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:


For all the talk of ES1 being 'preferentially run', I've seen *exactly one time* where I could play it, when it was 'squeezed in' during a pre-PaizoCon slot by a very kindly gm from the East Coast.

So some small percentage of folks may be able to capitalize on it being played multiple times, but that does *not* hold water based on my experience, at least?

It is run a lot online. I think that I've played it something like 10 times in total (between Core and Regular campaigns).

I don't need the credit, usually I've played it because it was the only game that I could play

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

I've played it exactly once. It's tough (especially for some types of characters) but it was a fast moving combat-oriented scenario. Fun for my swashbuckler, who needed to figure out how to parry and riposte. I found it a nice change from always doing Confirmation and Wounded Wisp, but I still prefer the primary scenario evergreens to start a character.

It helped that I had an awesome GM who took time to give us a reason the society was investigating the place -- not that Pathfinders need any special reason to poke at stuff.

Hmm

Sovereign Court 4/5

Wei Ji the Learner wrote:
Borrowgust Brick wrote:

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.

I’m not punishing anybody; a new scenario comes out every other month and can be played as standard or core. I did say that not everyone can GM, GMing would have to be their own choice.

And if the environment is not conducive enough they can start their own lodge to GM, there are so many choices and opportunities.

2/5

So now that the idea has been out there for a bit, does it appear that there is any support for limited replay applied to a first level character?

By this I mean:
1. No boons or special equipment.
2. 1 xp 2 pp
3. 500 gp to apply to a first level character
4. Some limited number of times a scenario can be relpayed. Possibly 2-5 replays per character.

Is this too much? If so, would any amount of replay not be too much?

Does this not go far enough? How much replay would be needed to satisfy the replay proponents?

4/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's a completely different suggestion -

Have a GM race boon sheet added to the GM Resources page.

How it would work -
On the sheet would be a number of different races, each race would have a number of boxes. Those boxes could then be checked off for each ran scenario that was not applied to a character. Once that race has all those boxes checked off, that race could be applied to one character.

Reasoning behind this -
(1) Cuts down on all the low level GM babies that most dedicated GM seem to have.
(2) A nice reward for GMs to get but is something they have to work towards. Also allows those GM some goodies that can't make the major Cons for one reason or another.
(3) Different races are fun!

5/5 5/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kifaru wrote:
Is this too much? If so, would any amount of replay not be too much?

I would like to respond that yes, I do think this is too much. Having been involved in a number of different living campaigns since 2nd Edition D&D, I recommend against increasing replay credits beyond the current limits. I don't think that players resent a limited opportunity for GMs to have extra opportunities for credit in return for the service they provide. However, if it gets opened up further, even in the manner you outlined, I think that there will be some who say, "Why can't I get some of that?" and I don't think that they'd be too out of line to ask that. I think that campaigns that have allowed unlimited replays have suffered as a result and while it seems you have not been receptive to the slippery slope argument, my opinion is that this is a real concern.

I would support GM Star replay credits refreshing yearly without the Expanded Narrative boon, because while I have found it easy to get one, I don't think that everyone has equal access to convention GM play opportunities.

I also would support some of the suggestions that have been made regarding rewards that do not involve chronicle credit, such as allowing Faction Card GM check boxes to be checked even when no xp are awarded or having a limited boon added to future chronicles so that a GM running a scenario for a second time might get a limited benefit without getting xp, prestige, and gold.

I understand that you feel that you are not being adequately rewarded for the work you do if you don't get something for your effort when you run a scenario for which you have already received a GM credit, but I think that opening up GM replay credits beyond the current levels would be bad for the campaign as a whole and I would rather that some GMs decide that it wasn't worth their time to GM a second run of a particular scenario over the alternative.

Scarab Sages 4/5

If the issue is lack of access to the Expanded Narrative boon, that could just be made available for free download with the restriction that's already in place that every player may only use 1 per season. I'd rather see that tried first than create a new boon to make additional races available based on games run or opening up a wide rule to allow GMs to receive some form of chronicle every time they run a scenario.

The issue I see with allowing a GM to take a chronicle for every 1-5 they run, even if it's limited and they have to put it on a 1st level character, is that it won't be long before players start asking for the ability to replay any 1-5 with a first level character.

Scarab Sages 2/5 5/5 *

The answer to that could be, "well, then you could GM it, and get a chance to see how things work on that side of the screen"?

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Kifaru wrote:

So now that the idea has been out there for a bit, does it appear that there is any support for limited replay applied to a first level character?

By this I mean:
1. No boons or special equipment.
2. 1 xp 2 pp
3. 500 gp to apply to a first level character
4. Some limited number of times a scenario can be relpayed. Possibly 2-5 replays per character.

Is this too much? If so, would any amount of replay not be too much?

Does this not go far enough? How much replay would be needed to satisfy the replay proponents?

No.

I also don't support this for GMs, if it is something people feel the need to grant to players.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

Kifaru was only referring to GM replay credit, not player replays.

Hmm

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I know in my mind, and I assume in Drogon's, you can't separate player and GM replay. You should be able to, but you can't, because people will take it as ammunition to open up the other side as well.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

I find this a really interesting phenomena. In my mind, they're very separate. Still, I'll bow to your greater experience here, TOZ, since I never participated in any other organized campaigns.

I'm starting to think that the best solution may be to compromise on the suggestions that Pete Winz listed.

Hmm

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Matt2VK wrote:

Here's a completely different suggestion -

Have a GM race boon sheet added to the GM Resources page.

How it would work -
On the sheet would be a number of different races, each race would have a number of boxes. Those boxes could then be checked off for each ran scenario that was not applied to a character. Once that race has all those boxes checked off, that race could be applied to one character.

Reasoning behind this -
(1) Cuts down on all the low level GM babies that most dedicated GM seem to have.
(2) A nice reward for GMs to get but is something they have to work towards. Also allows those GM some goodies that can't make the major Cons for one reason or another.
(3) Different races are fun!

Even if this wasn't just race boons, something like this would be much more preferred to just here play a scenario again. Here have yet another xp on a PC you may or may not ever get to play.

Silver Crusade 1/5 Contributor

Even if it's not the original Chronicle sheet, I'd rather get something that does something, especially something interesting. Given the choice between an empty Chronicle with partial gold/XP/etc. and no credit, I'd prefer no credit.

That's just me, though.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
I find this a really interesting phenomena. In my mind, they're very separate. Still, I'll bow to your greater experience here, TOZ, since I never participated in any other organized campaigns.

I wouldn't say it's much greater. I'm just opinionated. :)

2/5

Well, I guess I'll just bow out of this one. There doesn't appear to be enough interest in this to push to hard on it. The answer appeared pretty obvious to me, but apparently my viewpoint differs drastically from the vast majority. Most importantly, this proposal appears to be causing way to much distress and general unhappiness to be worth any potential positive outcomes. Happy gaming to all.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

I don't think your proposal brought distress and unhappiness -- the discussion that we had here was good, and it highlighted some problems that we do have in keeping new GMs engaged and motivated.

I think it brought up interesting issues, and gave me lots to think about. I just think we haven't found the right solution to keep you guys motivated and ensure that the campaign has GMs prepping a wide variety of adventures. I'm also wondering if there's a way to share the table prep that online GMs must do in order to make things easier for all of you.

Hmm

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
Kifaru was only referring to GM replay credit, not player replays.

If so, then I would not be as opposed. To clarify my own stance, some definitions may be in order.

Replay = players' ability to replay an adventure for credit.

Rerun = GMs' ability to rerun an adventure for credit.

If someone is using the word "replay" my assumption is that it is for players (and GMs would obviously gain the benefit as well, as "replay" crosses those bounds easily). This is why I responded the way I did, not because I don't support GM rewards.

To further state how much I support the idea of GMs continuing to get rewards for games they run, I will direct you to this post which very clearly lays things out, including a bullet-point list of options for GM rewards for rerunning adventures. I made that list because they are reasonable suggestions, and I would not have personally posted them if I did not support them in some way.

The only thing I would add to that post if I could is the fact that I would prefer to see any kind of character credit option be the last of the options that is explored. I would vastly prefer to see a reward card that unlocks things based on number of reruns.

Kifaru, you have my support. It is obviously not in exactly the same place your own wishes are, but I'm on your side. And I think a lot of people here are, actually.

4/5 5/5 * Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think that Drogan brings up a good point that the terminology could benefit from being split.

I also agree with TOZ that people will likely whine if the rules are adjusted to give GMs better rewards then them. I also think that those types of players are the ones who want to feel justified in their sloth, and so even if they will make a fuss we shouldn't let them decide how much we as a community show our appreciation to our GMs.

I personally feel that Crane Wing shows us that they need us more than we need them. ;-)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

How about free kittens for GMing?

4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
How about free kittens for GMing?

Dweomercat kittens, maybe?

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

rknop wrote:
How about free kittens for GMing?

My husband would never let me GM again...

Hmm

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

rknop wrote:
How about free kittens for GMing?

Ooh. Ooh. The more you GM, the more benefits you can apply to your animal companions and familiars. Increased options, increased ability to override some GMs "interpretations" of the rules, increased tricks.

Perfect. Well, for me anyway. And that is all that counts, right? :-) :-) :-)

Grand Lodge 5/5

Paul Jackson wrote:
rknop wrote:
How about free kittens for GMing?

Ooh. Ooh. The more you GM, the more benefits you can apply to your animal companions and familiars. Increased options, increased ability to override some GMs "interpretations" of the rules, increased tricks.

Perfect. Well, for me anyway. And that is all that counts, right? :-) :-) :-)

Can I get the opposite power? More I GM the more I get to take away tricks/powers from ACs, familiars, and eidolons. ;)

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

How about instead of 'real' kittens they were kittens on a chronicle that you could have for your character? Or puppies, or snakes, or whatever have you?

ie 'vanity' pets you can get from GMing 'non-chron-credits'. Does two things... buys into the whole Poke-thingie AND drags in all the completists!

I can't stop GMing yet, I don't have the Limited Edition Comptosaur!

That is *not* intended as an insult, honest, was trying to come up with a witty name for special vanity pets and attempted homage to one of the leads...

4/5 5/55/55/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
How about free kittens for GMing?

That would be an extremely good way to cause me to quit GMing.

Sovereign Court 4/5

Shh. You're spoiling the chronicle reward for scenario 8-55 The Bloodcove Surprise: Cats and Snakes Living Together

"So, you say you're Aspis agents and not Pathfinders. Ok, if you guys are so evil, then eat this kitten!"

(Cross the fluffy kitten boon off the chronicle if the PCs eat the kitten, and report their character as heartless.)

2/5

Kittens. Yes, I would GM for kittens.

4/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd gm for kittens but they always seem more focused on playing with the dice and not the story I'm telling them. Plus when they get a bad roll they sometimes nibble on me.

1/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Jeffrey Fox wrote:
I'd gm for kittens but they always seem more focused on playing with the dice and not the story I'm telling them. Plus when they get a bad roll they sometimes nibble on me.

I'd be more impressed that they got their own PFS numbers and created their own characters.

Compared to one or two cosmically (and comically) bad tables I've been at, that would actually have been an *improvement* :P

Sczarni

I understand that areas can have difficulty finding consistent and reliable GMs that are in any way okay to top notch at GMing. But not everyone will be good at GMING and others just won't.

As much as I could see a need for more for GMs who do gm, I do not agree with rewarding GMs for running the same things over and over. There are some scenarios I would run multiple times, like the quest for perfection trilogy, because I have found GMing them fun but I do not think one should continously get boons or chronicle sheets for gming. Shoot, if you gm the scenario 1st, you can hand pick which character gets the sheet and get insider info for when you actually play it.

I do not agree with threats either that if people do not step up, a certain number of people can't play or have to go home.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

One of the consistent problems I've had with running PFS with my home group, and even with running PFS online, to be honest, is finding scenarios to run that everyone, (except me) can actually play. I'm also the only one that managed to get the GM Star Replay Chronicle, so that really isn't a solution this many years later.

Part of the issue, at least for my home group is that, because I live in a military town, and most of the people in the group are in the military, we are pretty much constantly switching players as people deploy. Less common that they move away, but it happens as well. However, there is also a pretty decent amount of influx as well, and that tends to leave us, as a group in a near constant state of trying to find those few gems that everyone can play.

We tend to have only two GMs amongst the group, myself included, and while we tend to both be willing to run something we already have Player and/or GM credit for, we also both started off as players in the same group (with TOZ), and so we tend to have very similar checklists.

I've heard repeatedly that Replay = bad, and I've asked multiple times over the years for examples, explanations, and evidence as to WHY it is, even in theory, bad, but have never once received an actual answer, beyond "people may chronicle hunt".

But really, who cares. There are always going to be ways to game the system, and even more people to find ways to do it, no matter what. Because that is how some people enjoy playing the game, and that's not really a bad thing that some folks make it out to be.

I've also noticed, (I've started a few threads like this), that the most resistance tends to come from 4 and 5 Star GM's, and I've often wondered if their resistance isn't much more based on a combination of personal bias as much as just to change itself, rather than any realistic issue that might come by opening up replay, (such as the DM loosing a perceived degree of "I am god").

While some GM's might have a lot of GM babies, and others might have too many characters they can start out at Level X if they wish, not everyone plays that way, or even views making it to a certain level as the end goal.

I think the best solution I've heard was to make a handful of evergreen scenarios across the level ranges, specifically avoiding levels 1 and 2. That would actually go a long way to solving a few issues, and help alleviate some of the problems with lack of replay for credit.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
I've heard repeatedly that Replay = bad, and I've asked multiple times over the years for examples, explanations, and evidence as to WHY it is, even in theory, bad, but have never once received an actual answer, beyond "people may chronicle hunt".

Damn, we have to get that post that Drogon made a couple of years ago into an FAQ or some such.

I'm trying to find it, but am having a hard time doing so.

Replay has been observed to destroy previous organized play campaigns. You end up with the same people at the same tables playing the same games over and over again, not giving a crap about the play or the story, telling the GM who starts to read box text "We've heard all this before. Just go to the first combat."

Eventually everybody realizes how boring all of that is and the whole thing falls apart.

Drogon can say it better than I, as he's the one who observed it, and there is at least one post he's made in the forums somewhere that describes all of this.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

Found something: This isn't the post I was thinking of, but he does link to a whole bunch of other threads where the replay thing has been hashed out over and over and over again. Look in those threads, and you'll find all the arguments about why replay is a killer for organized play campaigns.

Edit: yes, he links to the post I was thinking of.

It's from six years ago. So, for six years, reasons have been out there for all to see why Replay = bad. It's not just an assertion; there are reasons, not only theoretical, but observed from previous campaigns.

4/5 ****

DM Beckett wrote:

I've heard repeatedly that Replay = bad, and I've asked multiple times over the years for examples, explanations, and evidence as to WHY it is, even in theory, bad, but have never once received an actual answer, beyond "people may chronicle hunt".

Here's a couple links with people describing how it negatively influences the player experience.

1: Reduces the quality of player experience

2: Reduces the quality of player experience

Here's my quick version on why it's a problem.

Getting new players, keeping them and turning them into your GMs and leaders of the future is incredibly important.

With unlimited replay your same old grognards will reserve every player slot. Why not? They like the game, they can play. In the short run this looks good, you're able to seat more players, you can offer any scenario you want and not have to worry about geek Sudoku.
However this chokes out space that could otherwise be used for new players instead of encouraging your old players to GM because they can't replay again.

Playing a scenario with 1 player who happens to be replaying is probably alright, especially if the player does a good job with keeping dumb.

Playing a scenario for the first time with 5 other players who are replaying is absolutely miserable.

Having played quite a bit of LFR for its first year I can share a personal anecdote with you.

I hated playing scenarios for the first time with somebody that was replaying. So I traveled around to different venues, driving several hours if needed making sure I played new scenarios as they were released at whatever venue had them first.

Of course after that I still attended my favorite venues and replayed. While I tried to be good and not spoil things, I'm sure I wasn't perfect, and can remember some miserable looks when it turned out everybody was replaying but 1 person. In retrospect I consider my actions part of the problem. I used up lots of player slots, I rarely GMed.

Eventually I had to take a break for 3 months while finishing up my accounting degree. After that I realized I had no interest in playing those 3 months of scenarios that I had missed because I'd have to play them with people replaying them. That's when I stopped playing LFR.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Beckett wrote:

I've heard repeatedly that Replay = bad, and I've asked multiple times over the years for examples, explanations, and evidence as to WHY it is, even in theory, bad, but have never once received an actual answer, beyond "people may chronicle hunt".

DM Beckett, I'm pretty sure you've been part of those discussions over the years, so I'm pretty sure you would have been exposed to my (and others') arguments. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but seeing as I know you to be one of the replay proponents (albeit one of the less strident ones, and one who actually comes up with good alternatives from time to time) I'm pretty certain we've shared space in those threads before. Hopefully rknop's and Pirate Rob's posts have a more lasting impact on your memory than my own.

Seeing as all the links and statements have been made by others I see no reason to add my own to this, beyond saying that I still haven't changed my opinion much in the last six plus years. I hope I'm a bit more politic than I used to be, and I think I've proven that even I can alter my stance on occasion. But as I said a few posts above I believe that not too much more "bend" will result in a break. I don't want to see that.

Edit: This, by the way, proves the veracity of my saying you often suggest reasonable alternatives:

DM Beckett wrote:
I think the best solution I've heard was to make a handful of evergreen scenarios across the level ranges, specifically avoiding levels 1 and 2. That would actually go a long way to solving a few issues, and help alleviate some of the problems with lack of replay for credit.

This, I believe, is actually a suggestion you proposed in the past, and it is one I like myself. It is a "bend" that will forestall a break. (-:

Shadow Lodge 4/5

rknop wrote:

Damn, we have to get that post that Drogon made a couple of years ago into an FAQ or some such.

I'm trying to find it, but am having a hard time doing so.

Replay has been observed to destroy previous organized play campaigns. You end up with the same people at the same tables playing the same games over and over again, not giving a crap about the play or the story, telling the GM who starts to read box text "We've heard all this before. Just go to the first combat."

Eventually everybody realizes how boring all of that is and the whole thing falls apart.

Drogon can say it better than I, as he's the one who observed it, and there is at least one post he's made in the forums somewhere that describes all of this.

Drogon and I have gone back and forth on this for a while. :P

His experience with prior Organized Play seems to be different than mine, which is fine, though I do question the idea of replay "destroying" play.

What you are describing, though, seems like a self correcting problem. There are already folks out there that just like combat, and could care less about the story, and that's not wrong. Just what they enjoy. I think we have also all begun to realize that outside of table variation there is also a sort of regional variation or trend with playstyle, and just because something might be poor in one town or area, it's probably not a great idea to base the entirety of play off of or to prevent that.

I've also seen the other side, where people didn't care about the rules, because their story or their (as the player) natural talent at speaking or reasoning was better than other player's.

rknop wrote:

Found something: This isn't the post I was thinking of, but he does link to a whole bunch of other threads where the replay thing has been hashed out over and over and over again. Look in those threads, and you'll find all the arguments about why replay is a killer for organized play campaigns.

Edit: yes, he links to the post I was thinking of.

It's from six years ago. So, for six years, reasons have been out there for all to see why Replay = bad. It's not just an assertion; there are reasons, not only theoretical, but observed from previous campaigns.

I respectfully disagree. If you look through most of those and other posts on the subject, you will likely find me and a few others questioning those reasons against the idea, as well as some different past experiences than those offered as evidence. Even the idea of harvesting Chronicles, to me both seems like a self-correcting problem, and an issue that can already be done fairly easily, if one wanted, but one that's really not all that worth it, and obviously so even in the short term. There just are not that many "must have" Chronicles out there, I think, and most of those are either part of a series, (requiring all parts), not that beneficial to have more than ones (like unlocking a race/feat/option for all your characters), or a slight boost, but not game breaking, (spend a lot of money/PP for a feat, +1 stat for one real life year). The other thing is, most of those are higher level scenarios, so while it would otherwise be possible to get a bunch of them, if one really, really wanted, it means they also have to get all those characters in the right level ranges otherwise.

However, I'd like to point out something I saw while rereading those threads. PFS has been out for a while now, and there are a good number of scenarios that, even one's I've run, I've completely forgotten about. More than once I've begun prepping a game, or even playing a game and as we get a bit into it, I get the feeling that some things sound really familiar. The scenario's name or even description blurb isn't enough, up front, to remind me, and I know a few other players personally, too, to remind us we have already played, if not run that scenario.

I'm sorry, I just don't really buy the idea that replay would ruin the game, but I do believe it would help solve some of the ongoing issues.

Pirate Rob wrote:

Getting new players, keeping them and turning them into your GMs and leaders of the future is incredibly important.

With unlimited replay your same old grognards will reserve every player slot. Why not? They like the game, they can play. In the short run this looks good, you're able to seat more players, you can offer any scenario you want and not have to worry about geek Sudoku.
However this chokes out space that could otherwise be used for new players instead of encouraging your old players to GM because they can't replay again.

Playing a scenario with 1 player who happens to be replaying is probably alright, especially if the player does a good job with keeping dumb.

Playing a scenario for the first time with 5 other players who are replaying is absolutely miserable.

Having played quite a bit of LFR for its first year I can share a personal anecdote with you.

I hated playing scenarios for the first time with somebody that was replaying. So I traveled around to different venues, driving several hours if needed making sure I played new scenarios as they were released at whatever venue had them first.

Of course after that I still attended my favorite venues and replayed. While I tried to be good and not spoil things, I'm sure I wasn't perfect, and can remember some miserable looks when it turned out everybody was replaying but 1 person. In retrospect I consider my actions part of the problem. I used up lots of player slots, I rarely GMed.

Eventually I had to take a break for 3 months while finishing up my accounting degree. After that I realized I had no interest in playing those 3 months of scenarios that I had missed because I'd have to play them with people replaying them. That's when I stopped playing LFR.

While I do agree that getting new players, keeping them, and then helping build them into new GMs is the way to go, I just don't agree that replay, particularly DM Replay is all that related or the cause of making that not happen. I'd argue instead that this would actually help to create more, and better DM's rather than hinder it, as I can't remember how many times I've heard people, new or experienced, talk about how they really loved a few scenarios, or an arch, and want to run them more than once so that they could see how different groups handle them, build confidence running something that speaks to them, and worry less about prepping and more about expanding on what's already there in the scenario.

For example, I really loved running the first four Blakros Museum scenarios, and I like to add a lot of spooky, odd sightings, personalized character visions, and other horror movie gimmicks to heighten the theme and mood of the scenarios. Particularly The Penumbral Accords and The Voice in the Void. I'd argue that running those scenarios a few times, and even stealing them for non-PFS games has made me a better overall DM rather than hindered me somehow.

One thing I want to point out is that I'm not talking about the more extreme side of someone replaying something 20 times, but rather more along the lines of 2 or 3 times, or even 5 times, tops. I just really don't see people even desiring to do so more than that, and even as GM's, I know I would get bored with the same scenario, especially if done pretty close together, would just get bored and not want to run it for a while.

I've heard other people speak the same way about the Quest for Perfection series as well as the Destiny of the Sands series, perhaps two better examples as both do actually grant Chronicles that have that little extra coolness you can not really get anywhere else.

I mean, I guess people could just ignore the story on those and just rush to get the Chronicles, I've just never really heard of it, even with being able to get credit up to five times as is.

My other issue with this sort of mentality is that I don't agree, at all, is that the goal should be to push "old grognards" out, even if it means new players. Nor do I agree that playing with someone, or even someones that have already played (or run) a scenario is a universally bad thing. In my experience, I've seen a lot of good and a little bad, and it mainly depends more on the player, not their category. This is just my anecdotal experience, but most of the time I've seen people replay a scenario, in any capacity, they tend to sit back and give even more spotlight time to the other players, and even enjoy helping me as DM build up some of the mystery or play into the trouble they know is coming.

Very rarely do I ever see anyone spoil things for others, even by accident, and generally they don't even tell anyone else they have already played, (unless it's online play which generally comes up right up front during application). At worst, they tend to, in character make suggestions to others about why it might not be a good idea to do X, and leave it at that.

Another factor to consider is that PFS does tend to offer a lot more opportunity to handle things, (individual encounters, if not the majority of a scenario) with a great deal of more possible options than most other game's I've seen or heard about. From my recollection of 3E Organized Play, the goal there seemed to be to offer 1-3 sorts of methods, while PFS seems more designed to offer a few "suggestions", but is completely open at the same time to allow for groups to handle things in unforeseen ways.

For example, in 3E, lets say you are supposed to have a fight with a group of orcs. It either happened, regardless of what the group did, or would just come around later. In PFS, however, you probably have the option to talk to them and not fight, sneak past or even ambush them, fight, cast an illusion and run, or whatever else to handle that encounter.

And that's one of the cool things about replay, and something I know I've seen plenty of times when running a game I've already run, or even played in something I've already run or whatever. Other ways to handle a situation that might not have been an option the last time. I just don't see that as a bad thing.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drogon wrote:

DM Beckett, I'm pretty sure you've been part of those discussions over the years, so I'm pretty sure you would have been exposed to my (and others') arguments. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but seeing as I know you to be one of the replay proponents (albeit one of the less strident ones, and one who actually comes up with good alternatives from time to time) I'm pretty certain we've shared space in those threads before. Hopefully rknop's and Pirate Rob's posts have a more lasting impact on your memory than my own.

Seeing as all the links and statements have been made by others I see no reason to add my own to this, beyond saying that I still haven't changed my opinion much in the last six plus years. I hope I'm a bit more politic than I used to be, and I think I've proven that even I can alter my stance on occasion. But as I said a few posts above I believe that not too much more "bend" will result in a break. I don't want to see that.

It's not that I have forgotten the ideas as much as I just disagree with them and have a different experience with past games.

Personally, I've never had any issues with you being less political/rude or anything of the sort. (I'd actually hold you as a very reasonable and enjoyable guy, particularly after some of the PM's we discussed this and other opinions we disagreed upon.) Rather, I believe you believe strongly in your experiences, (which might be more than mine), and we both agree that our ultimate goal is to make PFS better overall.

My main motivation is that in expanding replay options somewhat would solve a lot of issues that I know my groups tend to face. The two big attempts to help out in those areas (GM Star Replay and Core Campaign Play), in my experience have not helped much, if at all. Core Campaign would have just split some of my groups, creating another divide that would have killed us, while after all these years, only two players in my offline games, myself being one of them, ever got access to the GM Star Replay. Originally, I was under the impression it reset yearly, having never caught that that was changed early on, so I used one up pretty fast rather than conserving it like I would have otherwise, which means I also couldn't have later passed it on to someone else which I might have done instead to help the group be able to all play a few more games together, legally.

Because we tend to have new faces show up for a few months periodically around deployments, it gets very hard to continue to find things that everyone can play, and the more this happen, the less options there are. I just got back yesterday from my own deployment, and having gotten 4 stars, have a few new things open up, but it's probably not going to last long. Now, granted, my case, where we have roughly 5-10 players for a weekly game or two probably isn't common, nor is the player turn over.

But, that's also a big part of my point. Not everyone has the same circumstances that others do, and I don't think it's right to try to base the entirety of PFSOP on what is probably not the norm to try to prevent something that may not even be an issue.

PFS does offer a lot more options for play than I ever remember Living Greyhawk or Living Force offering, even in a shorter time frame. I could be wrong, but it seems to be that they tended to offer something like 1 game a month or every other month, and did not allow things like Modules or APs. I also seem to remember it being a lot more difficult to get involved or be an official DM, (it's been a while, but I'm pretty sure there was a test required and you also had to be observed by a small group of other official GMs, had to do an application, etc. . .)

So, while I'm actually a huge proponent of learning from the mistakes of the past and being cautious in making decisions, I really do not believe that, in this case, things are similar enough to worry about it as much as people seem to. Even my very limited experience with 4E and now 5E organized play just does not seem to be that similar outside of on the surface.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

While I respect your opinion (even if I disagree on the surface) I do not feel we should derail this thread.

This thread is about GM rewards. Let's not get off-track, as this is a discussion that could explode into hundreds of posts, if the past is any indication.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
DM Beckett wrote:
If you look through most of those and other posts on the subject, you will likely find me and a few others questioning those reasons against the idea, as well as some different past experiences than those offered as evidence.

Disagreeing with the evidence is extremely different from

DM Beckett wrote:
I've heard repeatedly that Replay = bad, and I've asked multiple times over the years for examples, explanations, and evidence as to WHY it is, even in theory, bad, but have never once received an actual answer, beyond "people may chronicle hunt".

Example have been given. Reasons have been given. Explanations have been given. While you may not agree with them, I was addressing what you said. Honestly, if you posted in those threads, how can you say that you've never once received evidence or explanations or examples?

My own experience is not with a RPG, but it's still relevant. Years ago, I played some WoW. I always wanted to try doing an Instance, because I liked the self-contained experience with a sort of a story that goes with it; it was a little less of the grind. However, when I'd manage to find a group, they would rush through it, having played it before, and I wouldn't be able to read the various story text that came along and keep up with the group at the same time. It was disheartening, and annoying.

Having the same thing happen -- and, from what multiple people have said, the same thing *does* happen -- in an RPG would completely ruin the experience.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
rknop wrote:


My own experience is not with a RPG, but it's still relevant. Years ago, I played some WoW. I always wanted to try doing an Instance, because I liked the self-contained experience with a sort of a story that goes with it; it was a little less of the grind. However, when I'd manage to find a group, they would rush through it, having played it before, and I wouldn't be able to read the various story text that came along and keep up with the group at the same time. It was disheartening, and annoying.

Having the same thing happen -- and, from what multiple people have said, the same thing *does* happen -- in an RPG would completely ruin the experience.

WoW Tangent:
Nothing is more frustrating than waiting hours to get into a dungeon that you've never been in before, you finally get in, you're admiring the sheer AWESOME creativity that the developers put into a magnificent cut scene... and you're kicked from the group because you're 'not keeping up'.

High Level 'Evergreen' Tangent:
Is there any way to get 'higher level' 'evergreens' produced?

What would it require?

What restrictions or limitations might be put in place for a GM re-running one?

I was in a different campaign for a v. long time before I started playing PFS. Within the past few years, 'replay' was opened up in the campaign but only with permission of the author of the 'module', since they wrote it.

Because of the many listed replay concerns, it was on a probationary status for one year, then a trial status for a second year, with one of the restrictions being that individuals that were replaying were expected to 'take a back seat' for the privilege of replay.

GMing a 'replayable' module/scenario is one of the most difficult juggling tasks possible. You want to keep things 'fresh' and 'new' but at the same time maintain the 'spirit' of the scenario without going too far off the rails.

That campaign had a rule of GM credit that allocated a very small amount of 'exp' with every ten 'modules' run counting as 'one module' played.

Because it was so cumbersome to track, most folks simply didn't. Those that did, though...

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

4 people marked this as a favorite.

If we were going to experiment with a higher level evergreen replayable, it would be best to put it at Level 6, where there is already a bit of a bottleneck. It would be best if it had randomizable elements and encounters in the same manner as Consortium Compact.

Hmm

Shadow Lodge 4/5

I honestly do not remember if it was my idea or not, but when we where talking about it, one of the major points was to aim for the level gaps that might seperate a table from being able to play together, for example leveling out of the 1-5 Tier.

The Exchange 4/5 Owner - D20 Hobbies

Hmm

I'd like to see higher level evergreens.
Level 2 (would allow for getting to level 3 with nothing but evergreen)

Level 3-5 (would help move you closer to level 4, 5, or 6)

But the real problem is that by the time people get to be level 4 or 5, you spend hours working up games a random group of 6 players and a GM can play.

Frankly I hate spending that time. Drogon solves it by just doing nothing but new stuff. But no matter what, it saps more time from me to coordinate what can be played than actually GMing the session some times. That part I hate.

The only way to solve it is to have one level 2 and 3 modules (3 xp) that work for level 3-5. So you could infinitely create level 5 characters with evergreen material. So we'd stop losing 100% of our player base once they level a couple characters to 6th and figure out there Ison chance of playing higher level.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Drogon wrote:

While I respect your opinion (even if I disagree on the surface) I do not feel we should derail this thread.

This thread is about GM rewards. Let's not get off-track, as this is a discussion that could explode into hundreds of posts, if the past is any indication.

Im not sure how I was off topic?

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

It's a GM reward thread. The topic of replay, and the virtue of higher level evergreens, has nothing to do with GM rewards.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

rknop wrote:
DM Beckett wrote:
If you look through most of those and other posts on the subject, you will likely find me and a few others questioning those reasons against the idea, as well as some different past experiences than those offered as evidence.

Disagreeing with the evidence is extremely different from

DM Beckett wrote:
I've heard repeatedly that Replay = bad, and I've asked multiple times over the years for examples, explanations, and evidence as to WHY it is, even in theory, bad, but have never once received an actual answer, beyond "people may chronicle hunt".

Example have been given. Reasons have been given. Explanations have been given. While you may not agree with them, I was addressing what you said. Honestly, if you posted in those threads, how can you say that you've never once received evidence or explanations or examples?

My own experience is not with a RPG, but it's still relevant. Years ago, I played some WoW. I always wanted to try doing an Instance, because I liked the self-contained experience with a sort of a story that goes with it; it was a little less of the grind. However, when I'd manage to find a group, they would rush through it, having played it before, and I wouldn't be able to read the various story text that came along and keep up with the group at the same time. It was disheartening, and annoying.

Having the same thing happen -- and, from what multiple people have said, the same thing *does* happen -- in an RPG would completely ruin the experience.

Allow me to be more clear. Im not discounting anyones personal experiences, but when my own do seem to be mutually exclusive, I'd like to know if I missed something, if its a matter of different tastes or prefernces, perhaps others did something wrong, or what the issues are. Just like if I watch a movie and walked away with an opinion far different from everyone else, Id like to hear what all they like or hated about it, and then probably watch it again to see if my opinion changes, if the points are valid, or maybe I just missed something the first time.

In this case, and every thread on the subject Ive encountered so far, I tend to see the same basic arguements made, particularly that it will kill the game. But, beyond that, when I ask for reasons why, evidence backing things up, statistics, and the like the only thing I seem to get is along the lines of "Ive seen it before" or "it may lead to X or might open the door to Y".

I dont really consider that evidence, nor a strong arguement when there is enough and significant differences between PFS and other unnamed Organized Play systems, as PFS is already designed to handle many of the potential downsides or problems as is, and the others, IF they even hapened, are self correcting ones.

100% of it is anecdotal, and while I do not mean that in any way as an insult, I don't personally view it as solid examples, evidence, or explanation. It DOES hold value, though.

Id like to also point out that games like WoW, but also at least the older D&D organized play to an extent where designed to almost require replay. For Living Greyhawk it was because gaining gear and money was so hard to do, to the point it became a trope about looting everydang thing off of a player characters corpse when they died. It was basically required for advancement.

PFS is different, both in that it is less stingy with money and gear, but also offers many more options for play, and rarely removing scenarios, modules, or APs from play. If I remember correctly, 3E organized play cycled their scenarios out after a year or so.

401 to 450 of 462 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Proposed Rule Change for Season 8: Unlimited GM Credits All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.