Mike Hadfield's page

I'm down for GMing Race for the Runecarved Key. Looks like fun!!

Hey Andreas, looks like I made it into another game, so I won't be participating in this one.

Can you sign me up on the waitlist Andreas? If anyone drops out I'd love to take the spot.

I'm thinking of running this scenario at the same time slot. Is the best way for me to do that by signing up as a 'judge' on the warhorn slot? I see that there are currently 2 GMs and 13 players(so presumably another GM would be welcome)

If I do that, how would players get divvied up between the tables? Would it happen automatically in some fashion, or would I need to organize with the other two GMs?

I love these game-days, and love it even more that I can participate in this one! Big thanks to Joseph and everyone else who's helping to make it happen!

Complexity and adding exceptions to the normal rules purely to accommodate one unusual playing method is my main concern. Right now, the only time a chronicle is held is GM/pregen credit from higher level adventures; this changes that. If I audit a character and see chronicle dates all over the place, how do I know if it's poor record-keeping, or someone who plays lots of overlapping PBP games?

If this is allowed, will people playing modules over several face-to-face sessions demand the same facility?

It wouldn't bother me if the rules were changed to allow this, I'm just concerned about any unintended consequences.

I think those are fair concerns. PFS has enough complexity and added rules as is, and modules certainly bleed over into the same gray area(applying GM credit to PCs 'locked-in' to a module).

Mike, Paz, and others (if there are other takers):

I currently have 7 PFS characters. They are the following classes levels:

Ranger 5
Rogue 1
Cleric 4
Fighter 1/Rogue 1
Gunslinger 1
Wizard 2
Fighter 2

Currently all except the Gunslinger are locked into PBP games.

Now I GM my 3-7 game. It could be a 5-9 game or heck even a 7-11 game. In that case I'd have a chronicle with no one to apply it to.

This is a different situation than the one I described in my OP, and different from what you're suggesting Paz.

If I only ran and played live games, and I ran something at a higher level than any of my PCs, I'd "apply" the credit to one of them, but only really adjust the character sheet when the PC was at the appropriate level.

Right now, I don't have a free character who's level-appropriate. So what can I do?

Where does the chronicle go? To some as-yet-uncreated character who must still wait until he's leveled to get it?

I'm not actually sure what the proper protocol there is, particularly if you were playing at 7-11.

I think(I don't know for sure) that you would need to apply that credit to a brand new character, adjusting the gold down to 500. As I understand it you couldn't hold that to apply to a PC that is currently playing in a game.

---

To be clear on my own position, I don't think you should be able to run the same PC in multiple games at the same time. Nor do I necessarily think that you should be able to apply credit from We Be Goblins, First Steps, or a pregen to a PC currently in a game(though that is more of a gray area). I'm purely talking about GM credit here.

Mike: I'd be interested in your take on this situation:

If you were to assume that you could assign GM credit to a 'locked' PC, and you did the following in two PBP games:

- GM scenario A, starting 1 Aug, ending 1 Oct
- Play scenario B, starting 1 Sep, ending 1 Nov

What order would you apply the chronicles in?

Assuming that I wanted to apply the credit from scenario A to my PC in scenario B, I would apply credit from scenario B, and then scenario A. Which strictly speaking, would be illegal. Mind you, as I understand it so would applying scenario A, and then scenario B.

Basically there is no legal way to assign the scenario A credit to the PC that played scenario B. Which also means there is basically no way for a PBP player to assign GM credit to a PC that they regularly play(only new or unplayed PCs would be legal).

My suggestion would be to change things such that the scenario A credit is 'held' until such a time as the PC finishes the current scenario. At that juncture(after the scenario), all 'held' credit is immediately applied in the order it was received. Keep in mind that the reporting of the scenario has already been done, so the GM has already chosen which PC will receive 'immediate credit' back at the time the scenario was reported.

What do you think of that suggestion Paz? Does that seem reasonable? Or are there reasons for NOT allowing that(and yes, making things overly complicated for staff counts as a reason :) ).

As a brief aside, by hard-lining GMs to not hold and apply credit to PCs currently locked in, it could in theory create some really annoying activities by GMs.

For instance, if a game I'm GMing is probably going to finish next week, but I think my PC will be locked in for another 2 weeks, I can simply delay my PBP game by being a crappy GM and not posting frequently. Then when my game finishes two weeks later, I can apply the credit legally to my PC(instead of illegally holding the credit).

Obviously I wouldn't do this, but a PBP game can take as long as a GM wants(a GM can also push adventures on quite quickly if they choose as well, botting PCs, fast-tracking combat and the like), and there's nothing stopping them from delaying as long as they would need.

Additionally, when does a PBP game end? When the boss goes down? When the last post is made? When the chronicle sheets are issued and the game reported? Again, a GM can delay those things for as long as they like, all in the name of legal credit application.

Again, my question is this: What are the arguments against allowing PBP GMs to apply credit to PCs currently 'locked-in' to a PBP game. Is there potential for abuse I'm not seeing?

The issue with the current rules is they don't take into account PBP very well(understandably, as PBP likely barely existed when the rules were drawn up).

As someone who plays almost exclusively PBP, my characters are locked into a game 98% of the time, because as soon as one game ends we typically begin another. So we have a two or three day break before the character is once again locked in.

What this means is if I GM a game, I can never apply credit to the PCs I actually play(only to brand new or otherwise unplayed PCs). The only way I could apply it to the PCs that I actually play is if by random chance a game I was GMing just happened to finish in the 2-3 day grace period between PC games.

This seems unnecessarily limiting for PBP GMs, though I don't dispute that it seems like the rules are currently written this way. However I see no reason that PBP GMs should not be able to hold and apply their GM credit until a particular PC ends their PBP game.

Given that it takes almost 6 months for a PBP character to gain 1 level, it's not like PBP players are going to all of a sudden begin levelling characters out of control if allowed to apply their GM credit in such a fashion. On the contrary, it simply allows them to properly take advantage of the GM reward system, ie a chronicle sheet.

I guess what I'm saying is that the rules were not designed for PBP, and to apply them as such diminishes the value of GMing considerably.

Does anyone really feel that if I GM a game from Aug 1-Oct 1, and apply that credit to a PC once he finishes his Sep 1-Oct 15 game, that it should be against the rules? If so why?

I'll have to pass as well as I've already played it, and am a bit swamped. Have fun!

Huzzah!

Aha! Thanks Nebten. This is what happens when you input things into herolab manually :).

Awesome!!

A quick question Joseph, can we both play AND GM?

Hi everyone! I'm looking for 4 players for 'The Icebound Outpost'.

You can sign up for the game over at the PFS Online Collective(once it gets posted), or in this thread here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/13334910#13334910.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/pathfinder-society-online-collectiv e