|
Now here's a problem.
Say you're a new DM and you've agreed to run a scenario with the lowest tier of 7-8. You've been told you get a GM reward out of it. But then you realise you cannot give the GM reward xp to any of your characters since you don't have any characters except for a 1st level dude.
I'd find it very unfair to not give this GM the reward until he'd have some 7th level character, so how should one act in this situation?
I already formulated a solution for this, although this would require all kinds of rewriting and such. Those might be reason why this wouldn't ever come to reality, which is a shame.
Anyway, the idea I had was to give the GM's character all the normal goodies (1 xp, 1 PA etc.), but instead of 1/2 of the gold given in the scenario on the appropriate tier (which might not exist for the character), give the character 250 gp per level. You're not convinced? I even made awesome excel table calculations to check it's as par as it could be.
Of course I have to go by the information I can have, mainly Season 0 scenarios and their average wealth income, and the wealth conversion table presented in the guide.
Also regarding scenarios like Lyrics of Extinction:
On tier 6-7 it gives 2927 gp (I doubt this is a spoiler?). Half of that is 1463 gp. If the GM reward would be given to a 6th level character with the alternative method, it'd be 1500 gp. Not too far off, and it'd still follow the "half the money" idea. The main benefit would be: a) Simplicity, and b) compatibility. You could give the GM reward of a Tier 7 minimum scenario to a 1st level character.
"I so wish DarkWhite could have written this instead of me. He's better at articulating!"
|
|
Say you're a new DM and you've agreed to run a scenario with the lowest tier of 7-8. You've been told you get a GM reward out of it. But then you realise you cannot give the GM reward xp to any of your characters since you don't have any characters except for a 1st level dude.
Anyway, the idea I had was to give the GM's character all the normal goodies (1 xp, 1 PA etc.), but instead of 1/2 of the gold given in the scenario on the appropriate tier (which might not exist for the character), give the character 250 gp per level. You're not convinced? I even made awesome excel table calculations to check it's as par as it could be.
I don't recommend a new GM run a tier 7-8 scenario, but there are several other situations where this could arise. A GM with a high level character could lose him due to multiple deaths. A GM with only low level characters could volunteer to help out at a convention.
I agree that it would be better if a GM could get credit for any scenario they run.
|
I don't recommend a new GM run a tier 7-8 scenario, but there are several other situations where this could arise.
Actually, a GM new to the Pathfinder Society could already be a very skilled, knowledgable, and fun GM.
I think the proposed situation is actually pretty common. For example, I have a friend who doesn't play nearly as often as many of the rest of us do, and he has only a 2nd level character. He's a great judge, though, and we plan to tap him to run a game day for us where we play only the 7th+ level mods. I think his receiving half of the Tier 7-8 gp reward--the lowest the adventure provides--is a fine way to reward him for this.
I'm not looking to make any changes to the GM rewards. Heck, two weeks ago they didn't even exist. :-)
|
|
Heck, we didn't have a clue what it was gonna be until it gets out. And seems like after it gets out, there's not a thing in this world that would ever get it fixed or altered.
At least instead of yelling "This sucks" I attempt to give constructive criticism and possible solutions to aid in this dilemma... I think.
|
If the GM rewards could be made more rewarding, more fun, and easier to implement, why wouldn't we do that?
I don't want this to come off like:
Josh: "Surprise! Here's some candy!"
Ungrateful Masses: "Ugh! This candy tastes like dog food!"
It just seems weird that for the rest of the PFS rules, there was an enormous amount of player input through Season 0. Meanwhile, this aspect of our shared experience was enacted without (to my knowledge) player input. We aren't just trying to get more candy, just suggesting improvements to the candy distribution method. My extremely limited and entirely anecdotal evidence suggests that there are many people who are mainly GMs and many who are mainly players. Because wealth makes up a significant portion of a character's power, handing out gold to go with the XP & PA is an important part of making sure that the "mainly GM" can play with the "mainly players" when s/he gets that rare opportunity.
Bob
|
|
Josh started a thread called "GM Rewards: What do *you* want to see?" back in May on the topic.Meanwhile, this aspect of our shared experience was enacted without (to my knowledge) player input.
Bob
Thanks for pointing me towards that thread, Githzilla. I was wrong and I'm sorry. However, I'd like to point out that concerns were expressed in that thread about the half gold reward. To me, that makes concerns about getting NO gold even more valid.
I think _metz_'s arguments for full gold in the other thread do a great job explaining why this is a problem.
|
|
Alas the format Josh gave in May 9th has stayed exactly the same despite numerous posts made after that stating the character would lag behind a lot. There was some conversation about GM rewards, and in regards of gold I browsed it through and noticed that only 2 persons for half gold where as 6 voted for full gold.
So, Bob Hopp, you were actually right in your initial post about not having real player/GM input. _metz_'s explanations and analyzes seem all for naught. So, to get a kitten you must start by asking for a pony. How about double gold?
I'm disappointed. Honestly, I really am.