GM Stars

[Hmm]

I do think that Cup would make a great real world VC. She does analyze the heck out of everything.

Amusingly, Tineke Bolleman (aka Woran, aka VC of the Netherlands) recognized me from my avatar when she met me at PaizoCon. Our expressions can be eerily similar!

Okay, back to the conversation of GM Stars, and what to do with them!

Hmm

[Gary Bush]

Blind Prophet wrote:

Seriously though, it took me forever to piece together that your signature is your initials.

It took me about a year so don't feel bad!

[GM Tyrant Princess]

I miss that avatar sometimes.

[Woran]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

I do think that Cup would make a great real world VC. She does analyze the heck out of everything.

Amusingly, Tineke Bolleman (aka Woran, aka VC of the Netherlands) recognized me from my avatar when she met me at PaizoCon. Our expressions can be eerily similar!

Okay, back to the conversation of GM Stars, and what to do with them!

Hmm

Wait. Are you telling me you are not actually a real life gnome? I think I need to sit down for a moment.

;)

[Silbeg]

So, I will weigh in here (at a latish date) with my preference, which is option #2.

It is my opinion that stars, in and of themselves, are not an indicator of rules prowess, nor do they necessarily indicate skill at GMing. What the indicate is that you have GMed a lot.

That being said, I think that there is no problem in rewarding time put in from other campaigns...

I did have a slight tweak to the formula, but, really, something that is simple ((stars * 10) or ((stars - 1) * 10)) tables credits seem to be the way to do it. If this is done well, it could also be a live value, so that if you gain your third star in PFS1, you would immediate get the "bump" in PFS2 (and the opposite could also be true, getting your 2nd star in PFS2 could give you a bump in PFS1).

That's my take on things... whether it is a popular notion or not ;)

[N N 959]

This thread has died down. My cursory reading suggests that Option 2 is the most popular. I find that odd as it seems to me:

1) You're setting up situation where everyone has not put in the same effort to get the same reward for PF 2e. Why? Many have voiced that doing stuff in 1e should not give you any leg up in 2e, yet, that's exactly what Option 2 does.

It would seem to me that whatever the sigil is for 2e, everyone's should represent the same effort.

Plus, this seems like it's got some unneeded administrative overhead.

2) If we're wiping away all the benefits until someone earns the requisite stars in 2e, then unless someone actually puts in the effort to re-earn all those stars, a 5 star GM from 1e, who maybe doesn't want to keep GMing, is not being rewarded for the effort that they put into PFS (remember, PFS is going full 2e in 2019).

Granted, if PFS is not going to get rid of the benefits earned in 1e games for 2e, then this is a moot point.

3) Option 2 seems to disincentive people from GMing in 1e. If I'm a long way from the next tier, there's no real incentive to keep GMing 1e. I'm sure there are plenty of people who will claim that 2e has no effect on their decision to GM 1e, but there are already people who have said it does. Wouldn't it make more sense to count all game toward the same goal? Every game, whether 1e or 2e, directly or indirectly supports PFS.

That having been said, I am one of the least affected by the changes. If every single last 5 star GM wants Option 2, so be it. It just seems an odd choice.

[wolaberry]

I like the sound of option 2 but 3 would be good. To me the number of Stars represents a commitment to the campaign so getting a small bonus in the new edition makes sense.

[Sporge]

I personally think option 2 is best. While true stars never really indicated the quality always it did show some level of dedication, and much of the experience will be transferable. I mean general game mastering role-playing portions won't be terribly different, and much of Golorian's lore will similarly be accessible. I think it makes sense to give a slightly accelerated way to get stars back.

[axian]

I'll go ahead and voice my opinion... I don't really care too much :P

That being said. If it is a matter of rewarding dedication, why was a similar acceleration not done with Novas? If it is a matter of rules knowledge, why would we receive a subsidization from a different system?

In regards to providing a boon based on 1e Stars, I don't have an issue with it provided it has no significant game effect or that there is some way it could be earned by a new player. Perhaps it is an exclusive boon for the first year or two but becomes available at a later date to all...

[WaterDragon]

This is a little off topic but I have always feel that GMs should be strongly encourage to run the same scenario many times. The more times that I run a particularly scenario, the more I can create a better experience for my players. It helps me a lot after seeing what each group does and help me better my performance. One of the aspects of GM that I feel is important is to be a good storyteller/tour guide. GMing something more than once really helps. No matter how much I prep PCs still do very unexpected things and gone through it few things, help me be more prepare for their actions. I am not think of extra chronicle sheets at all, since there are so many backlog that I could muster 5-10 characters all the way to level 12 retirement with just unused GM credits.
What I am asking for consideration is maybe if you run the same scenario 5 or 10 times, you can be call a specialist for that particular scenario. I like to have the specific maps and exact miniatures for games, encouragement to run the same scenario would help justify even custom figurines.

[pjrogers]

WaterDragon wrote:

This is a little off topic but I have always feel that GMs should be strongly encourage to run the same scenario many times. The more times that I run a particularly scenario, the more I can create a better experience for my players.

While I've not much experience running scenarios multiple times, I think that for me there would be probably be a sweet spot. I'd probably be at the top of my game after running a scenario a couple of times but after running it five or more times, I suspect that I'd start to burn out a bit.

I'm basing this in large part on my teaching experience where I do better with a class after I've taught it one or two times, but I eventually need to refresh the material, or my teaching starts to go a bit stale.

[nosig]

pjrogers wrote:

WaterDragon wrote:

This is a little off topic but I have always feel that GMs should be strongly encourage to run the same scenario many times. The more times that I run a particularly scenario, the more I can create a better experience for my players.

While I've not much experience running scenarios multiple times, I think that for me there would be probably be a sweet spot. I'd probably be at the top of my game after running a scenario a couple of times but after running it five or more times, I suspect that I'd start to burn out a bit.

I'm basing this in large part on my teaching experience where I do better with a class after I've taught it one or two times, but I eventually need to refresh the material, or my teaching starts to go a bit stale.

I have actually found that running the same scenario multiple times can be a lot of fun - as long as I have unique players. For example, I've run First Steps more than 5 times - and would jump at the chance to run it again for people who have not played it before. LOL! I think I could likely run it from memory... and I'm sure that each time I have run it, it has been a different game. (Everything from the guy in knocked below zero by a falling crate - and almost being swept out to sea, to the party that left the Imp loose in the Para-countesses bedroom).

I've run Black Waters 3 or 4 times, and I plan to run it again here shortly... and I'm really looking forward to springing it on some a "new crew"...

But everyone is different.

I know judges who refuse to run anything they have run before... but I actually think that is more because they don't get a CR for running it a second time than because of burn out.

[WaterDragon]

pjrogers wrote:

I'm basing this in large part on my teaching experience where I do better with a class after I've taught it one or two times, but I eventually need to refresh the material, or my teaching starts to go a bit stale.

I also taught as an adjunct professor for a while. The first time I teach any class subject, I was just trying to make sure I got everything and reacting to the students' reaction. Things that I thought is simple often tripped up the students, while some topics just got dragged out a little too long than necessary. The more times I taught a class, the better I can make adjustment to the flow and spend more time thinking about the individual students.

In PFS, when I ran something for the second or third times, it is always a better experience for the players and myself.

[Marc Waschle]

I agree with WaterDragon!

Depending on the scenario I will run it several times. It all depends if I like the story and the NPCs. I find that the more I run a scenario the better experience I can give my players! Some scenarios I know when play or read them the first time that I will run them multiple times. Those are the ones I print out "nice" custom maps for, buy minis if I don't already have them, and hone my NPC voices/personas. I learn something new about how to run the scenario each time I run it and get better at it each time, at least I like to think so. lol

I don't care that I don't get a chronicle sheet, I run the scenario because I have a good time running the scenario! Plus I still get credited for the table! I believe I have 1 scenario that I have ran 5 times, and another 1 or 2 that I have ran 2 or 3 times, not including 8-99 that I have ran all the tiers of so far. I would also happily run them all again if people wanted to play them.

[Arnim Thayer]

pjrogers wrote:

WaterDragon wrote:

This is a little off topic but I have always feel that GMs should be strongly encourage to run the same scenario many times. The more times that I run a particularly scenario, the more I can create a better experience for my players.

While I've not much experience running scenarios multiple times, I think that for me there would be probably be a sweet spot. I'd probably be at the top of my game after running a scenario a couple of times but after running it five or more times, I suspect that I'd start to burn out a bit.

I'm basing this in large part on my teaching experience where I do better with a class after I've taught it one or two times, but I eventually need to refresh the material, or my teaching starts to go a bit stale.

As a GM who has run some scenarios multiple times, I can tell you that it definitely hits a “sweet spot” where your “mastery” of a scenario allows you to really shine. I’ve run Silent Tide, Mists of Mwangi and The Wounded Wisp (not to mention Masters of the Faleen Fortress!) so many times, I know the statistics almost by heart! Because of that, I can focus on the story, teaching mechanics, and even instilling Golarion lore to new players. I wish there was some form of encouragement for GMs to run multiple times...but unfortunately, the fear that a GM would “farm” a particular scenario is also a real concern.

I ask that the campaign leadership please look to this issue and address it with the 2E PFS play if possible.

[TriOmegaZero]

Man, I will run Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment at the drop of a hat...

[Shifty]

Given that the playtest begins really soon it would be good to have some idea how this is all going to unfold.

It would also be good to know whether playtest tables will 'count' towards the new systems stars, and whether Beta test will provide chronicles (player and/or GM) going forward into PFS 2.0

[Rebecca]

As a gm who has few stars, I certainly don't expect to get a huge bonus out of prior stars. But I would suggest that a system which reflects some bonus for prior service would be appreciated. My preference would probably be for option 3 - get a small benefit, but a positive benefit, but everyone at x runes/sigils has the same service time.

[sanwah68]

Shifty wrote:

Given that the playtest begins really soon it would be good to have some idea how this is all going to unfold.

It would also be good to know whether playtest tables will 'count' towards the new systems stars, and whether Beta test will provide chronicles (player and/or GM) going forward into PFS 2.0

What he said...details would be good for those of us starting to organise our playtest tables

[Mystic Lemur]

My personal preference is the ratings be separate for the simple reason that a 5 rune 2E GM might decide to run 1E someday. He wouldn't get star-equivalent rating in a system he's never run, so why should those going from 1E to 2E?

[numbat1]

Quote:

It would also be good to know whether playtest tables will 'count' towards the new systems stars, and whether Beta test will provide chronicles (player and/or GM) going forward into PFS 2.0

My understanding from what was said at PaizoCon is that they will be tracking Playtest "credit" and this will have some benefit for the new system but until the new system is firmed up (after Playtest) there will be no definitive decision on what that will be. Basically, they don't want to announce something and then have the value of that something change due to Playtest results.

[Shifty]

I'll be honest - the amount of 2.0 Playtest content I run at cons and public events is directly tied to the table credit/chronicle question.

If running Starfinder counts as table credits towards my Novas and required table count per annum, but 2.0 playtest doesn't count towards anything, then I'm pretty heavily incentivised to not spend the entirety of a con running something that will leave me at a disadvantage. I suspect my VA's have the same reservations.

[Eindridi]

Shifty wrote:

I'll be honest - the amount of 2.0 Playtest content I run at cons and public events is directly tied to the table credit/chronicle question.

If running Starfinder counts as table credits towards my Novas and required table count per annum, but 2.0 playtest doesn't count towards anything, then I'm pretty heavily incentivised to not spend the entirety of a con running something that will leave me at a disadvantage. I suspect my VA's have the same reservations.

I ran the preview 2.0 playtest at UK Games Expo this last weekend. I ran somewhere in the region of 20+ tables over the 3 days, none of which I am going to get recognised for in any Rune/Star/Nova sense.

Whilst of course it would be nice to have a digital cookie to acknowledge this time spent, for those who are aware of me as a GM it isn't the volume of games I run that I am remembered of but the quality of my games, including, but not limited to, the depth of characterisation and development of my NPCs. I do love my silly voices.

[Shifty]

Happy enough with that, but as a VO I'm on the hook to run a set number of tables and conventions, so it is a case of prioritising what we run (and what I run) during a peak period. I have been merrily running PF1 tables, none of which I am going to get recognised for in any Rune/Star/Nova sense - but they still count for sessions run and are able to be quantified when I get hit up by an RVC.

[Limor]

My opinion is likely colored by the fact that I'm looking at ending up a handful of specials short of my fifth star, so take this with a grain of salt.

Some of the best GMs I've played under have had to stop and look up a rule that came up unexpectedly. Conversly, some of the worst GMs I have played under know the rules inside and out.

I think that GMing encompass a variety of skills beyond rules/system knowledge. Organized play adds in a few different skills to the mix. Those are the skills that I find are more concentrated in 5 Star GMs.

For that reason, I hope that whatever option the leadership team decides on skews in favor of experienced 4 and 5 Star GMs.

[atexasdelite]

I look at stars to mean that you have GM'd many tables. I liked Jack's idea that if your stars go up for PFS1 or PFS2 it applies as a bump to your overall tables ran.

[Felix Gaunt]

To me the stars show how many times you GM'd PF, it's irrelevant if it's PFS1 or PFS2. You've invested a lot of time prepping and running games, given that PFS1 will fade away and PFS2 will be the replacement it seems somewhat disingenuous to pretend your PFS1 games never happened. If someone wants to GM a PFS1 game while PFS2 is out, good for them, and good for PFS.

PFS will be like a see-saw for a little bit, with PFS2 slowly taking over as more people become familiar with the rules and transition over. Ignoring PFS1 GM'ing (or even playing via unused Boon rewards) is probably not a great idea IMHO, because eventually there will be a PF 3.0, so it'll be advantageous for Paizo to make the PFS1->PFS2 as fair and balanced as possible for both Players and GMs.

[Tonya Woldridge]

Locking this thread.

Commentary is moved to the blog discussing GM Star Update