|
How many GMs have retired a level 12 PC that they've never played in a game? Just use 1 character for all their GM chronicles. That might be an interesting contest for Paizo.
With retiring a PC at lvl 12, I personnally don't want to collect a chronicle for each time I GM. There just isn't enough games to play to give up playing because of GMing.
The biggest benifit to GM credit is being able to start a brand new PC at level 2 instead of level 1. Beyond that ... not so much.
|
How many GMs have retired a level 12 PC that they've never played in a game?
I don't bother anymore. Initially I applied all the credits, but now, my mid/high tier GM credits go largely unused. When I play I want to actually play my character. The only exception is I do not enjoy levels 1-2, so I usually use GM credits to start a PC at level three, switch to slow XP progression around level 5-6, and then back to normal progression around level 9-10. Again, I don't enjoy high tier play as much.
Even doing this and having 160+ GM cedits, I only have one 12th level PC with another one this weekend. My next PC is level 7 and a smattering of 3-4.
|
Personally, I think GMs run modules better when they've run it at least one other time. I find it odd that the PFS system doesn't encourage that. Maybe a simple max 3 chronicle sheets per scenario applied to different characters would do.
I kinda like this suggestion. Everyone can get 3 chronicles for the same adventure, applied to 3 different characters. That would allowing playing the adventure 3 times, or GMing 3 times, or GM once and play twice, or GM twice and play once.
It's not unlimited replay, but it would solve problems like the original poster has. It would also encourage GMs to re-use scenarios, which should usually result in them GMing the scenario better the second time.
Maybe playing 3 times is a bit much. But I do think GMs should be able to run the same adventure for credit multiple times. This is worth discussing, anyway.
|
|
I had a long post ... but instead I'm just going to say .. and beg ..
Please lock this thread. The subject has been discussed and rehashed and I think the majority of players and GMs are happy with the current rule and feel that it doesn't need to be changed.
*to take a page from Doug's book in another thread*
Nothing good will come of this.
|
|
A GM already gets to take a maximum award and apply it to a character of his/her choosing, with no risk to the character; that's already more than a player can do. And if the GM plays the module before running it, that's two Chronicle sheets. If further GM awards are needed, then allow both the Chronicle sheets to come from GMing the session so that being the first GM to run a new module doesn't mean giving up that second one.
Just curious, how often would you be willing to eat a scenario so that others could play, with no option to ever play it? What percentage of the scenarios are you willing to never play so that others can?
I'll answer honestly and say I'm not that generous. I already give up a little bit of the wonder that comes from playing first, but I'm happy to do it to make our game days work. I would be less likely to step up and run whatever the day needs if it meant giving up ever being able to sit down with my friends and play at some future date.
Someone has to go first. Will it be you?
Well, Paizo and the PFS folks have been looking for new GM rewards beyond the star system, so if they are willing to handle the cost, why not something simple, like a dollar of Paizo cash awarded per session run? It would basically be virtual money only usable at Paizo's store. Say you have run 20 sessions and have 20 cash? Go buy that fancy dice set or that gaming book you have been putting off because you just could not quite afford it. Not only would this encourage more GMing, but it would also encourage more reporting, since you would not get the cash if the scenario is not in the system. And more GMs also means more of the Core Assumption books being sold than might otherwise be, covering some or all of the cost of this system. More GMs also means more chances for new players to try the game, who in turn will buy more books as well.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Just curious, how often would you be willing to eat a scenario so that others could play, with no option to ever play it? What percentage of the scenarios are you willing to never play so that others can?Someone has to go first. Will it be you?
Absolutely. Once I've been the GM for a module, I have very little desire to play it; I know far too much about the plot, hazards, etc.
Even with the best of intentions, it's hard not to let that forbidden knowledge influence your play (and even if I could manage that, I'd still miss out on the suspense of not knowing what came next).About the only time I'd think that would be fair to me and to the other players would be if all the other players at the table had already run the scenario (as player or GM), or had read the module (which, IMO, should also have to be declared to the GM).
As to the percentage of scenarios I'd be willing to never play - there are already scenarios I have very little desire to play, for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be prepared to GM them. I might not do quite as good a job as I would in a scenario more suited to my preferred style/setting, and certainly not as good a job as I would do running a scenario I'd already experienced as a player, but I hope I'd still be able to do an adequate job.
I'd say that around one in four scenarios/modules is one where I'd absolutely want to have the full experience of running in it as a player, and about the same are ones where I would not want to play for one reason or another. That's 25% of the scenarios I'd be prepared to eat without a second thought, and a whole lot more that are negotiable.
Admittedly all my experience as a GM has been as part of small social groups of up to a dozen or so players, so there wasn't much need to repeat a scenario. Three or four of us alternated in the role of GM because we all wanted to play some of the time. I did once GM a scenario that I'd already played in (albeit with mostly new players), but mostly we had plenty of newer modules we wanted to try out.
|
|
I really don't see the problem with letting someone GM a scenario multiple times for credit. If your player base changes enough that you can legally run it for a new group, then why shouldn't you be able to and get the credit?
You could argue that each additional GM credit need to be applied to a new character, but even then, why?
If I build a 3rd level character by running "Murder on the Silken Caravan" 6 times, for 6 different groups of players who've never played it before, is anyone really losing out besides me for having 6 of the same chronicle with the same crummy reward on it?
On the plus side, being allowed to run the same scenario more than once lets you run it with experience, you know all the little plot twists, you have a better handle on the NPCs and their lines, you can do the funny voices. Plus, you're cutting down on the number of scenarios that you would miss out on playing through without foreknowledge. I've been asked to GM for my society group on occasion, and I'll tell you this, I will always ask to be allowed to run something I've already played if the option is open.
I know that being able to run the same scenario more than once means you can get a better replay value for your purchase, but is that the real motivation behind this rule? So we have to keep buying more scenarios?
If you want to encourage GMing, let us legally run scenarios multiple times.
Wraithcannon,
whether they ever change it to getting credit more than once for running a scenario or not, you can still never have more than one chronicle from a scenario on a character, so you may need a different example. :)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe I'm unrealistic, but I prefer my GM's to do it because they want to, not because they are farming for chronicles/rewards.
I think of GM rewards as the gateway drug for GMing. You lure them in with the promise of rewards and then after GMing three or four times they realize they enjoy GMing for its own sake.
For us anyhow, GM rewards are good for recruiting but not for retention.
All that said, if people want to talk about changing GM rewards, it shouldn't be changed in a way that limits my play choices later on. It would be much more difficult to recruit if prospective GMs knew that GMing would limit their play options.
|
|
Someone has to go first. Will it be you?Absolutely. Once I've been the GM for a module, I have very little desire to play it; I know far too much about the plot, hazards, etc.
Even with the best of intentions, it's hard not to let that forbidden knowledge influence your play (and even if I could manage that, I'd still miss out on the suspense of not knowing what came next).About the only time I'd think that would be fair to me and to the other players would be if all the other players at the table had already run the scenario (as player or GM), or had read the module (which, IMO, should also have to be declared to the GM).
I don't find it that hard, actually; unless I'm doing it subconsciously. No one has complained yet. But yes, if you can't separate, then I could see where it could be a problem for you. I have a tendency to forget things, so that makes it easier.
As for the loss of suspense, that's the price I pay to make our game days work out. But that is my loss, and I don't think it affects the people I play with. If I thought playing with me after I've run wasn't fun for my table mates, I wouldn't do it. But I also wouldn't run as much as I do.
As to the percentage of scenarios I'd be willing to never play - there are already scenarios I have very little desire to play, for a variety of reasons. That doesn't mean I wouldn't be prepared to GM them. I might not do quite as good a job as I would in a scenario more suited to my preferred style/setting, and certainly not as good a job as I would do running a scenario I'd already experienced as a player, but I hope I'd still be able to do an adequate job.
I'd say that around one in four scenarios/modules is one where I'd absolutely want to have the full experience of running in it as a player, and about the same are ones where I would not want to play for one reason or another. That's 25% of the scenarios I'd be prepared to eat without a second thought, and a whole lot more that are negotiable.
Admittedly all my experience as a GM has been as part of small social groups of up to a dozen or so players, so there wasn't much need to repeat a scenario. Three or four of us alternated in the role of GM because we all wanted to play some of the time. I did once GM a scenario that I'd already played in (albeit with mostly new players), but...
I'm still just a newbie, I'll admit, and maybe these numbers will swing wildly later. But when I started in PFS, I was averaging running 60% 75% to playing 25%. Since I was new, most of those games (90%?) were ones I hadn't played yet. If I couldn't replay them later, I'm not sure I would have been willing to eat that many. I expect the other co-coordinators for our group have similar numbers. Now that we have more people, newer new people, those numbers have dropped; I'm nearly 50/50 now.
I'm not generous enough to eat and never play 75% or even 50% of the scenarios. I don't expect our other GMs to do so either. I do think if someone wants to self limit themselves that way, either because it's too hard for them not to let foreknowledge influence their game, or because they will miss the suspense too much, then they should be encouraged to do so.
But I do think if GMs weren't allowed to play a scenario after running it, our game days would suffer and our growth would dwindle as our experienced GMs burned out, and new ones failed to step up.
|
|
Enevhar,
But why do you think that is? The rules already prohibit you from gaining any special boons on the chronicles if you get them from GMing. The only thing available is the money, the xp, and the items available for purchase.
If someone is worried I'm going to claim to have access to six (limit one) items, like partially charged wands, then put an addendum in the GM rules that says you can only purchase one set of items no matter how many duplicate chronicles you have.
If that is the only concern, because I honestly can't think of any other realistic ones (other than making us buy more scenarios), then would you see any objection in allowing you to assign a GM credit for running the same scenario multiple times to your different characters, one for each?
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I guess we'll just have to agree to differ on this. I suppose it's partly because I still haven't entirely adjusted to the concept of a module that's all over and done with in three or four sessions, with most of the characters gaining a level at the end of it. I still think in terms of story arcs that can easily span a year or more, and a level advancement rate slower than even the slow advancement path. If you're restricted to a shorter setting, and especially if you're running a pregen instead of one of your own characters, there are less critical decision points, and it's easier to avoid inadvertently giving away information by small changes to how your character behaves.
I'm also not a big fan of out-of-character awards of any kind being brought into the game, although I must admit that the PFS ones are far better balanced that ones I've seen in other gaming settings. But if that's what is needed to attract GMs, so be it.
|
|
1. I can't replay modulesThere is nothing in the Guide to Organized Play that says you can't tag along for a module you've already played.
But just tagging along tends to be tedious. Many people have been pulling for a movement to be able to replay modules. The same ones get run over and over again. I've seen "Frostfur Captives" and "Mists of Mawangi" run about 15 times in the past year. You run out of options pretty quickly.
|
|
But just tagging along tends to be tedious. Many people have been pulling for a movement to be able to replay modules. The same ones get run over and over again. I've seen "Frostfur Captives" and "Mists of Mawangi" run about 15 times in the past year. You run out of options pretty quickly.1. I can't replay modulesThere is nothing in the Guide to Organized Play that says you can't tag along for a module you've already played.
Then be the person who lobbies or runs other scenarios in your local area. Help organize at another store or location and make it a point to run 'Perils of the Pirate Pact', 'Beggars Pearl' etc. I know from personal experience players show up.
As for replay, I support a very limited replay rule; for every ten tables you play or GM you get one replay. This allows you to replay a scenario to make up for a poorly GMed scenario or to allow you to simply join in with friends. At the same time it doesn't open the floodgates.