|
What's the need to have credit for running it AND playing it? It just doesn't make sense to me. (This isn't directed at you specifically, there are plenty out there who want credit twice or more)As long as you get credit once whether it's from playing or GM'ing you're not falling behind someone who's only playing.
What Kyle said.
Mike
I agree that there really isn't much reason for getting more than 1 credit per mod, however at the same time there are only a limited amount of scenarios... and some people would like to play twice a week if they could with PFS.
That being said a good legitimate reason for wanting it is if you play in DIFFERENT groups (Or are the DM most of the time for different groups) and one group is significantly higher level, and doesn't have deaths in the group, and plays very often eating up your available mods. And the second group is slower and not as cohesive. In this case you would want to have a second character of similar level to both groups, but aren't necessarily able to.
With the current system you can, and I think it's a very fair system to allow two credits through DM and play. It also encourages people to DM for that second credit, which is great for expanding DMs !
|
|
there are only a limited amount of scenarios... and some people would like to play twice a week if they could with PFS.
(Not directed at you, evil Kyle)
If you want to play more than 28 scenarios a year, then get off your butt and grow The Society! Stop playing these at home, go to conventions, get friends to play, make sure tables get reported, write reviews for the ones you have played!
Getting more active players nationwide is the ONLY way you're going to see more than 28 per year.
|
|
there are only a limited amount of scenarios... and some people would like to play twice a week if they could with PFS.(Not directed at you, evil Kyle)
If you want to play more than 28 scenarios a year, then get off your butt and grow The Society! Stop playing these at home, go to conventions, get friends to play, make sure tables get reported, write reviews for the ones you have played!
Getting more active players nationwide is the ONLY way you're going to see more than 28 per year.
Send me the cash and take my place at work and I'll gladly go to these conventions you talk about. Some of us do not have that option as readily available as others. The closest regular PFS oreinted convention we have is an 8 hour drive. And by regular, I mean once a year. After that I gotta take off an extra two days to go to a convention because driving time increases to over 12 hours.
Also, some of us have a very limited number players. And that includes my 9 year old and her friend.
|
I've had a hard time getting GM's for our weekly PFS event. Only myself, one full-timer and one part-timer for 2-3 tables. I do not mind GM'ing every week, but my other GM's need time off. Since the decision to allow the GM/player credit to work in both directions (no longer have to play first), I have received three offers for additional part-time GM's. Thanks for this minor change Hyrum and keep 'em coming!
We had a question about Master of the Fallen Fortress, yesterday
Can the GM apply it to a 1st level character if they "eat" it or does it have to be a brand new PFS character for the GM?
thanks!
Mike
Hey Mike,
You can apply the GM credit to any 1st level character. Note however that they get zero prestige.
Hyrum.
|
|
PFS charges $3.99 a scenario, not free.If you are a player, they are free.
If you volunteer at a convention, they are free.
$4 for 4 hours of entertainment for 5-8 people is amazingly inexpensive.
Free is relative and depends on location.
To grow PFS I try to go to the local war game club instead of my own place as often as possible. Every player there pays 2pounds an evening for room hire - this includes the GM.
The closest place to have another GM is 75 miles away. With current fuel prizes its far from free.
When I went to PaizoCon UK with my wife I had one of my student gamers moving in to our place and babysit the kids while I was away. Not really free.
I do collect Dwarevnforge Scenery and some of it was used for PFS games for the very first time. We are now far, far away from free.
The $4 on top I hardly care. And I agree - they are pretty good value for money. But unless you have a very local group there are a lot of things which tend to be far, far from free - as a gamer - but even more as a GM.
To me it's worthwhile every penny - butbplease don't sell it for free to me.
Thod
|
|
Not to quibble, but I think we both know he was referring to the modules. And it is perfectly true and correct that the cost of the module is not paid by the player. Are there costs? Of course, it's a hobby. :)
To me it's worthwhile every penny - butbplease don't sell it for free to me.
And as one who GMs 2/3 of the scenarios and purchases those scenarios, it is far from free for me. Also, technically, if I play a scenario and then want to run it for a different group, I have to buy the scenario. The exception here, GMing at a Gameday or Convention. But if you play at a convention and then want to run it for the local group, you will need to purchase the scenario.
|
We had a question about Master of the Fallen Fortress, yesterday
Can the GM apply it to a 1st level character if they "eat" it or does it have to be a brand new PFS character for the GM?
thanks!
Mike
Hey Mike,
You can apply the GM credit to any 1st level character. Note however that they get zero prestige.
Hyrum.
Wait, so now judge credit chronicles aren't worth any PA?
|
|
I have purchased all of the scenario's and do my best to run as many games as I can to build the community. I prefer to play a scenario first for credit and then GM it for credit for a new character. I have dozens of character concepts so I spread the scenario's around. I have also "eaten" at least 20 scenario's so I am not overly picky about playing it first.
Gallard - Only the Master of the Fallen Fortress does not have PA for both players and GMs. This is an exception from the rule. Otherwise GMs get full PA and full gold for the scenario's they run (The first time only).
|
|
I have purchased all of the scenario's and do my best to run as many games as I can to build the community. I prefer to play a scenario first for credit and then GM it for credit for a new character. I have dozens of character concepts so I spread the scenario's around. I have also "eaten" at least 20 scenario's so I am not overly picky about playing it first.
Gallard - Only the Master of the Fallen Fortress does not have PA for both players and GMs. This is an exception from the rule. Otherwise GMs get full PA and full gold for the scenario's they run (The first time only).
Ah, context.
Thanks for the clarification.
|
I would like to toss my two coppers in here. well it is a bucket. I seem to have ranted quite a bit. Ill apologize in advance.
I suppose we must first ask, what is the goal of Pathfinder Society Organized Play?
“Our number one rule in Pathfinder Society Organized Play is to get as many people playing as often as possible” (P 17 Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play 3.0)
If this is indeed the case, then I think some of the rules might need to be bent.
For example, If I am running a game at a local gaming store, and I have seven regulars who show up, and say another two people drift in who are interested and would like to give the game a try what should I do?
If no one else is willing to GM, so the group can be broken into say two tables, with one gm and three players, and another gm and four players, I have reached the “hard ceiling” and I would have to turn away these two potentially new players.
While I think it is an excellent idea to allow a GM to run a table with as few as three players and one Pregen, I think the “hard Ceiling” should be negotiable so I wouldn’t have to turn people away. If everybody at the table agrees, then I will let those two new players play. I will not turn them away because of some “hard ceiling”.
After all “ Turning players away only serves to build walls between the Society and new players- Avoid doing so whenever possible” (p 17 Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play 3.0)
And those new players wont come back.
On the OP’s original topic, GM rewards and Chronicle sheets, again I think in order to retain players and bring more players in some rules need to be bent.
From what I understand, once you GM a scenario, you can never get player credit for it again. That is a showstopper “eating a scenario”. That means I will probably not be willing to GM a new scenario before I have played it. Talk about a disincentive.
It is hard enough to get people to GM. I like the idea of a GM credit allot. It means if someone is GMing, they can also give credit to their character as well. This is a nice carrot. A nice big crunchy carrot.
I know most people like the idea of only allowing a GM to get one credit for running a scenario. Fair enough.
I am going to ask for more. How about giving someone a credit for every time they GM? The credit of course, if they run the same scenario more then once, will have to be applied to a different character. I think this will give Organizers an incentive to offer someone who is familiar with a Scenario, and has GMed it before. They can GM it again, work out some kinks, and pass a credit onto one of their characters, or perhaps it will encourage them to make a new character. Otherwise, what incentive, other then the joy of GMing , could an organizer offer someone to get them to GM a scenario twice? I think it would be easier to get people to GM if they knew they were going to get a character credit for it.
On the subject of replaying a scenario, I do like two caviats, It must be a different character from a different faction. It encourages people to make different characters.
However only allowing people to replay in order to make a legal table, is well, penalizing those who have put allot of time into playing Pathfinder Society Organized play.
I do fully support booting someone if they have either spoiled the plot for the other players, or used their experience to give them an edge.
For example, If I arrive at a PFS game, with two tables, and I find that I have played both scenarios, and I am one of several people, not the last man to make a legal table, should I just pack my bags up and go home? Is it fair of me to sit down at a table and say you have to run this scenario or that one because I havn’t played them?
I think the Replaying rules need to be more flexible. Now I was in the Raleigh Durham area for about 9 months. 8 of those months. I know of a fairly large group in the Raliegh area. I got to play PFS twice a week. I even did some GMing as well. I had allot of fun and they were a good bunch. I arrived in the February with one third level character, and over the course of 8 months I played twiece a week, playing and sometimes GMing. The third level character I arrived with I was able to advance to 10 level. I stared a second character and got him to 7th level. I started a third character and got him just shy of 3td level. Good times.
When I left in September, there were some 40 regulars. They met twice a week, on Monday nights and thrusday nights at the gaming store Game Theory. On Monday nights we regularly had two tables, and Thursday nights 3 to 4 sometimes more. The organizer used a spread sheet to figure out who had played what. He did a very good job at putting tables together, and figuring out which scenarios people handn’t played.
I think if he could say that every time you GMed you got a credit, and if the Play Play Play rules trumped the replay rules ( provided it is a different character different Scenario) , It would be much easier for him to get people to GM more then once, and much easier to put tables together.
The simple fact is this, if the rules are too onerous, If they prevent people from playing Pathfinder Society Organized play. People will leave. I don’t think we want that.
In the interests of attracting more players, and retaining the ones you have, I think that some of the rules need to be relaxed.
Well I apologize for that long rant, but those are my two coppers ( more like a bucket)
|
|
For example, If I am running a game at a local gaming store, and I have seven regulars who show up, and say another two people drift in who are interested and would like to give the game a try what should I do?
If no one else is willing to GM, so the group can be broken into say two tables, with one gm and three players, and another gm and four players, I have reached the “hard ceiling” and I would have to turn away these two potentially new players.
My personal opinion is that your 'regulars' are doing everyone a disservice by not offering their seats to the walk ups. Also, by this point one of your 'regulars' should be thinking about running games themselves. Especially stuff they have already played. I'm not talking about being ready to run a game cold in this situation, but if you have regulars who are interested in GMing, they should spend time going over something they have already played to be able to offer it in a pinch. I know this is just an example, but probably somewhat based in reality. The point here is that out of 10 people, it sounds like only 1 (you) are actively trying to grow the community. Clearly the 2 walkups probably don't know much about the community and they are the kind of people you want to make a great impression on so they can become regulars too. But it sounds like the table is full of people who want to earn 1 XP and 2 PA, rather than help grow something special and cool.
As a practical matter I feel 5 is the perfect table size. Seven hurts badly and the thought of going over 7 makes me a sad panda.
|
|
I wanted to address something here.
While I understand that Paizo is still in the relatively early stages of their organized play, and I know that they need to be able to justify the cost of producing the adventures, its probably not a good idea to overly dismiss the idea that it costs money to run these things. Not that anyone at Paizo has denied this, but there have been a few posters that have.
I respect you all, but honestly here's somethings that stick in my mind about this issue.
1. Back in Season 0, "support" for conventions was mentioned, and later there were posts discussing that GMs should get a hold of Paizo for "support" for conventions. Basically, for me, this consisted of telling me what adventures were suppose to be out by the time of the convention . . . which were then pushed back and I had to really push it to prep the scenarios in time for the convention.
In the end, I have paid for four scenarios for one convention and three more last year in order to run these. Was it a major cost? Nope, but it was also at a convention, where PFS is going to get its widest exposure, and by the third year, there still isn't any particular program in place for supporting conventions, at least that I know of. If there is, I'm even more upset that my e-mails didn't end up getting a reply that indicated as such.
2. Its not just the scenarios that cost money. Printing out faction handouts, Chronicles, and PFS cards in case people need numbers does cost money. If I really want to represent PFS well, I get these things printed out in color.
On top of that, at the FLGS, I'll usually keep my adventure and the Guide to organized play on my computer, but at a convention I like to have a hard copy of the Guide for everyone to see, which I also have to print out.
3. Even if I don't mind doing these things, and a lot of the die hard dedicated GMs here don't mind doing these things, I have to say that both years at Winter War here in Central Illinois, I've had people that used to run games in Living Greyhawk ask about running Pathfinder Society, and when they ask if I was the one that had to print out all of the Chronicles, handouts, etc. there were at least a few people who seemed a lot less enthusiastic when I indicated what had to be done by the GM/Coordinator.
I'm not saying that any of this is something I begrudge Paizo for, I am just saying that its a little annoying to have the cost of running or organizing these events trivialized when it does seem to have at least some impact on some people's opinions.
|
|
I wanted to address something here.
I agree with the spirit of everything you said here. I've watched Mr. Miles spend hundreds of dollars running Origins. And it was more than just printing out chronicles. He bought a printer to have at HQ which was used for additional chronicles, copies of scenarios, and printing out new membership cards. He even bought the GM's snacks and beverages. The only thing we GM's could do to help was volunteer for more slots and scramble to avoid turning away any players.
Not to quibble, but I think we both know he was referring to the modules. And it is perfectly true and correct that the cost of the module is not paid by the player. Are there costs? Of course, it's a hobby. :)
Exactly.
|
|
I have to say that both years at Winter War here in Central Illinois, I've had people that used to run games in...I would be glad to shoot down I57 and help out in January.
Looks like the CIRCA guys are going to do the lion's share of organizing, but if you want to be put on the list of "Call me to GM" people, e-mail me at KnightErrantJR "at" gmail "dot" com and I can put you in touch with the guy that's doing the organizing this year.
|
|
I wanted to address something here.
I agree with the spirit of everything you said here. I've watched Mr. Miles spend hundreds of dollars running Origins. And it was more than just printing out chronicles. He bought a printer to have at HQ which was used for additional chronicles, copies of scenarios, and printing out new membership cards. He even bought the GM's snacks and beverages. The only thing we GM's could do to help was volunteer for more slots and scramble to avoid turning away any players.
Not to quibble, but I think we both know he was referring to the modules. And it is perfectly true and correct that the cost of the module is not paid by the player. Are there costs? Of course, it's a hobby. :)Exactly.
And then he asked why we did more lol :) great example.. and then there was Kyle hehe
Twilight knight, Where do you read that I can get credit for playing after I GMed? Then what does it mean to "Eat" a scenario if you can play it after you ran it? I am a little confused here.
From page three of this thread, here is the official ruling by Hyrum on how it works now:
Official PFS Ruling wrote:If you play you earn 1 credit that is applied to the character that played through the scenario.
If you GM a scenario, you earn 1 credit that can be applied to any character that hasn't played through the scenario.
You receive GM or player credit regardless of the order you play/GM the scenario. You may not earn more than 1 player credit and 1 GM credit regardless of how many times you GM or play the scenario. You are free to use PPP to seat legal tables, but if you already have earned your credits you do not earn any additional ones.
So, in other words, there is no "eating" a scenario anymore.
|
|
I believe with the new ruling above, you can play once for credit without being a replay, whether or not you've already gm'd the scenario. I'm guessing that from the "no matter what order" indication in this:
You receive GM or player credit regardless of the order you play/GM the scenario. You may not earn more than 1 player credit and 1 GM credit regardless of how many times you GM or play the scenario. You are free to use PPP to seat legal tables, but if you already have earned your credits you do not earn any additional ones.
This.
|
|
This.I believe with the new ruling above, you can play once for credit without being a replay, whether or not you've already gm'd the scenario. I'm guessing that from the "no matter what order" indication in this:
You receive GM or player credit regardless of the order you play/GM the scenario. You may not earn more than 1 player credit and 1 GM credit regardless of how many times you GM or play the scenario. You are free to use PPP to seat legal tables, but if you already have earned your credits you do not earn any additional ones.
I am not reading it that way at all...
Just because it says you can get credit no matter what order, does not mean you still have to fall under replay to play it once you GM. It does not say that at all.
Edit: Also from the new GM credit rule I am getting the idea you will no longer be able to get player credit for replay once you have player credit, since it says you can only get player credit once.
Edit: Also from the new GM credit rule I am getting the idea you will no longer be able to get player credit for replay once you have player credit, since it says you can only get player credit once.
I would say you are right, seeing as how the new rule says this:
You may not earn more than 1 player credit and 1 GM credit regardless of how many times you GM or play the scenario.
|
|
IMHO, Playing after you GMed it is no different than a replay. I think that if you play it first (no knowledge of the scenario) and then GM it later for credit, that is acceptable. It rewards folks for GMing, but doesn't push the replay issue. I also believe that if you replay to make a legal table, and you use a different PC/Faction, then you should get credit for that too. I know a handful of people who have done this and that is how it was handled and entered in the system.
|
|
IMHO, Playing after you GMed it is no different than a replay. I think that if you play it first (no knowledge of the scenario) and then GM it later for credit, that is acceptable. It rewards folks for GMing, but doesn't push the replay issue. I also believe that if you replay to make a legal table, and you use a different PC/Faction, then you should get credit for that too. I know a handful of people who have done this and that is how it was handled and entered in the system.
And then they changed it.
Not sure why. Our group wasn't confused about the old rule. I believe that most people were clear on what the rule was. Now I gotta try to explain that there is a new rule. And I have heard GMs say that until its in the Guide, they don't care, they'll still go by the old rule. They think its ridiculous to require everyone to review all the messages on the boards just to figure out what is the latest rule change.
|
|
I guess that solves one problem as it creates another, although the new problem is much smaller. As long as a free for all replay rule is avoided like the plague, then I can live with it. No worries.
It may be a little more difficult to convince people to replay to make a legal table. I am also not sure how I would go about reporting that, but I will cross that bridge when I get to it.
|
|
I think you would only report the character #s of the players who were receiving credit. The reporting system doesn't require you to enter ANY character #s at all to report a game, so if you only had one person who wasn't replaying, you'd report the GM #, the actual player receiving credit's character #, and if the GM was running for the first time, the GM's character #. Done.I guess that solves one problem as it creates another, although the new problem is much smaller. As long as a free for all replay rule is avoided like the plague, then I can live with it. No worries.
It may be a little more difficult to convince people to replay to make a legal table. I am also not sure how I would go about reporting that, but I will cross that bridge when I get to it.
Yep, that would be it!
It really is simple.
|
|
until its in the Guide, they don't care, they'll still go by the old rule. They think its ridiculous to require everyone to review all the messages on the boards just to figure out what is the latest rule change.
You don't need everyone to read the boards, you only need One. For example in my Group it is me, though a few others do to, but it is my job to really clarify things to our group.
You are here a lot, for your group it could be you.
Edit: Though for me, since Hyrum did not clarify anything with the new GM credit, it makes it to hard to implement until he does.
Basically the new rule is useless unless we get info on the replay rules.
|
|
until its in the Guide, they don't care, they'll still go by the old rule. They think its ridiculous to require everyone to review all the messages on the boards just to figure out what is the latest rule change.
You don't need everyone to read the boards, you only need One. For example in my Group it is me, though a few others do to, but it is my job to really clarify things to our group.
You are here a lot, for your group it could be you.
Edit: Though for me, since Hyrum did not clarify anything with the new GM credit, it makes it to hard to implement until he does.
Basically the new rule is useless unless we get info on the replay rules.
While in theory that sounds good. But I do have GM/players that won't take my word for it. They want to see it written in blood first. Is life, I guess.
|
|
until its in the Guide, they don't care, they'll still go by the old rule. They think its ridiculous to require everyone to review all the messages on the boards just to figure out what is the latest rule change.
You don't need everyone to read the boards, you only need One. For example in my Group it is me, though a few others do to, but it is my job to really clarify things to our group.
You are here a lot, for your group it could be you.
Edit: Though for me, since Hyrum did not clarify anything with the new GM credit, it makes it to hard to implement until he does.
Basically the new rule is useless unless we get info on the replay rules.
What is the question again? Replay doesn't appear to be at odd with the 1 Player/1GM credit ruling. The scope of replay should be limited and rare, and since you can only now get 1 XP as a player if you replay you aren't going to get credit by definition.
|
|
What is the question again? Replay doesn't appear to be at odd with the 1 Player/1GM credit ruling. The scope of replay should be limited and rare, and since you can only now get 1 XP as a player if you replay you aren't going to get credit by definition.
But normally, to play a Game and get credit once you have GMed you need to be using Replay rules, and the New GM credit of getting Player Credit even after getting GM credit does not change that, or state otherwise.