|
would still run a 7-8 person table and just report it as more than one table. So really, why bother?
I don't know what to say to that....
Yes I do...
Not I only are 8 player tables not allowed but reporting it as 2 tables when it was one is even worse because a GM is getting credit (star) that does not derseve it.
That is just wrong.
|
I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I really dont want to turn players away, and many times the only copies of scenarios anyone has with them are the ones currently being run.
Edit:
Im not saying it would be used to purposefully abuse the system to get more stars (though I dont think you are accusing me of trying to cheat the system), but on the rare occasion at a regular game day when it happens, I'd like to avoid not letting them play if at all possible.
It has happened once that I know of at my venue, though it was while PFS wasnt under my watch, but since then, we have started using Warhorn for early sign up, which has done a lot to help us circumvent table problems.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
With regards to this, and many challenges GMs face while working within the framework of organized play, I always fall back on looking for help from the players.
At my FLGS, we don't have a sign up sheet. We've never had one, and we've only considered implimenting one for the small group of *hardcore players that want to have Saturday module game days, and only to get everyone on the same page. We play at 6:30, and most everyone arrives before hand. While everyone is mingling, I go around with a whiteboard and write down all the prospective players characters classes/levels (e.g. monk 3, fighter 5, druid 11). Then, I break people apart into groups for our two, sometimes three tables.
If we have 14 people, we have two 6 player tables. If we have 15, we have three 4 player tables. I've never had any of my players throw a fit or refuse to GM. They might complain a bit, or remark that they really wanted to play tonight, but they take it in stride and do their duty as a member of PFS. It's never been a huge issue and if it remotely started becoming one, I assure you we'd have a lengthy discussion.
There's no reason why people in PFS can't be mature about when tables need to be split, and if, for some reason, you find yourself with 7 brand new players and are forced to play only one 7 player table, that shouldn't be a problem either. PFS needs new blood to keep growing, and eliminating the option for another person to play is just foolish.
So I don't think 7 person tables are the issue, it's the people that abuse their existance. And those people are always going to be problematic.
If people really want to jank the system by running 7 person tables constantly or always playing up, then they've got some strange reasons for playing a roleplaying game. This isn't an MMO. There's no "grinding" or instance running that needs to take place to have a good time with this game. I said earlier that such large tables are pretty easy for the players, but that doesn't make them less enjoyable for me as a GM.
For my fellow GMs and players that have encountered such folk, you have my deepest sympathies.
* -- by hardcore I mean players that are addicted to PFS, not players that consistently play up or are trying to power-level their characters.
|
|
I'm sorry if you feel that way, but I really dont want to turn players away, and many times the only copies of scenarios anyone has with them are the ones currently being run.
Edit:
Im not saying it would be used to purposefully abuse the system to get more stars (though I dont think you are accusing me of trying to cheat the system), but on the rare occasion at a regular game day when it happens, I'd like to avoid not letting them play if at all possible.
Yes I am accusing you(or who ever did it) of cheating.
Straight out, not doubt about it cheating... It is not a matter on how I feel about it, by doing this you are cheating the GM Star system, and no excuse is a reason for that cheating..
If it happened once, now you know better.
Some of us have worked really hard to get the stars we have and doing this belittles that besides cheating.
|
|
as to showing up at a game without a binder of things I can run?
heck, I normally show up with "rolly case" holding a box of generic minis, at big binder of PCs, books, dice sets (at least 3 extra), pencils & pens (more than 2 of each), wet erase markers, several Maps (in a different case I have more maps), and a lot of other stuff. AND a binder with at least 5 mods I can run (right now it has a dozen), with ARs (7 each). OH! and my faction shirt is displayed on top of the case (I've had one judge so far that didn't let me have a re-roll, 'cause I didn't have it on my body...).
And it takes me almost no time to wheel it to my table, or my car. It's less of a problem than a stack of books.
Nosig, I am currently in the mix of organizing myself to be able to do the same.
|
I ran only one 8 man table. The whole store was full up, every table was used, and I think that almost every table was at 6 players already. Ran it as a table of 8, had fun, and reported it as one session. I think one player didn't get credit, and that scenario still had a player death (1st level rogues and x3 crits don't mix well). Did I enjoy running it? It was fun, but 7 players is better, and I prefer 4 man tables. All-in-all however, everyone had fun and I believe they are still returning to the store.
|
|
Not that I like 7-player tables (I loathe them, really), but even if Paizo officially changes the hardcap limit of a table to 6, there will likely be situations where my venue(and I would imagine several others) would still run a 7-8 person table and just report it as more than one table. So really, why bother?
Some people will always cheat.
|
|
Not that I like 7-player tables (I loathe them, really), but even if Paizo officially changes the hardcap limit of a table to 6, there will likely be situations where my venue(and I would imagine several others) would still run a 7-8 person table and just report it as more than one table. So really, why bother?Some people will always cheat.
Let's try and keep this civil. He stated that he didn't see it as cheating, just a necessary evil. I get no feeling of intent to "cheat" the system, just a mistake. I have made mistakes that would by definition be considered "cheating" once I realized the mistake I corrected it, and it doesn't happen anymore. I assume when someone is made aware of their error, they do the same. We're only human. So, let's all play nice here.
|
|
Let's try and keep this civil. He stated that he didn't see it as cheating, just a necessary evil. I get no feeling of intent to "cheat" the system, just a mistake. I have made mistakes that would by definition be considered "cheating" once I realized the mistake I corrected it, and it doesn't happen anymore. I assume when someone is made aware of their error, they do the same. We're only human. So, let's all play nice here.
Thank you very much, Dan.
As I said in that same post, it didnt happen under my watch. I wasnt the organizer, wasnt the GM, and wasnt the person who reported the session.
|
|
Clarification edit: He being the GM who did this, not GodsDMit
I see it a different way in this example. I see he did what would take 2 tables, and either 2 gm's or 2 slots, and did it in one, made his players happy. I personally don't see the problem since the same amount of players are satisfied, and he gets the same amount of stars for the same amount of players.
I don't look at my slots as another slot. I look at it as X players satisfied and run through a scenario. He satisfied mathematically the same as two tables, so two tables of credit seems fair. If anything, I think by "breaking" that rule, he serviced PFS even greater, than forcing a player out. (Maybe stars should be rewarded by how many players are "serviced" vs how many tables you ran. 4 players = 1 credit etc.)
To break this in marketing terms. A customer with a bad experience tells 10 people about it. A customer with a good experience tells 3. He gained 3 people hearing good things, instead of 10 people hearing bad things. I'm not seeing how this is a loss
Of the three tables I judged at TotalCon, two of them were groups where cells or ipads were their copies of the rules/character sheets. It was a little disconcerting since I'm used to the distracted players due to cell phone attention-hogging apps causing problems, but this group (hey, Shane!) was speedy and well-coordinated.... So, I would be VERY cautious about thinking you need to call someone out for having their phone busy being poked at during others' turns... They could be looking up the relevant spell description or ability they are going to try to use to keep a TPK from happening.I say this because that particular group took three deaths across two scenarios, with two of them on the same PC in the same scenario...
This was texting, not rules and sheets. And multiple times they had to be nudged to TAKE THEIR TURN when it came up, and had to waste MORE time trying to react to a game they weren't paying attention to. [Not a PFSOP game, so perhaps I'm leaping to compare apples and oranges.]
|
|
Clarification edit: He being the GM who did this, not GodsDMit
I see it a different way in this example. I see he did what would take 2 tables, and either 2 gm's or 2 slots, and did it in one, made his players happy. I personally don't see the problem since the same amount of players are satisfied, and he gets the same amount of stars for the same amount of players.
You are forgetting the Time factor, if this was done consistently, it would take a GM half the amount of time to get Stars.
A mistake is one thing, willing to admit it is a mistake is good thing.
Willing to take it as a mistake and not do it again is also a good thing.
Continuing to support it and do it would be cheating no matter the excuse.
It is wrong and not fair to those GMs that actually put the time in to get those stars...
IMO
Hypothetically if I was in a similar situation *I wouldn't* I would not report the 8th player and keep it as one game so you are not cheating the Star system, since it is the chronicle that counts not the reporting.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Star's in my opinion except for the right to an exclusive which is a weak incentive in the first place are just a notch on someone's epeen. It means nothing, so when you tell me that he'll get there faster by doing so, I don't care.
What really matters is if his players were happy and if they left thinking good things about PFS and PFRPG. If they did, then mission accomplished, pat on the back.
As far as passing judgement, has there been anyone complaining on the boards about that session? We'd be 333% more likely to hear about a bad session than a good one according to marketing statistics.
Edit: I'm sorry if you find my dismissive nature to stars insulting, but that is how I feel. Having 2, 3, or a million stars makes me no better a GM than not having them at all.
|
|
Hypothetically if I was in a similar situation *I wouldn't* I would not report the 8th player and keep it as one game so you are not cheating the Star system, since it is the chronicle that counts not the reporting.
I don't like the idea of chronicles floating around that aren't in the database. Maybe it's the auditor in me. But I do agree that is the more preferable solution.
But at some point you just have to say "No." If 7 is okay, why not 8? If 8 is okay, why not 9? Because it just isn't. If 7 is the hard limit, and 6 is the soft limit, then there better be a good reason to run a table with 7 players. There have been some great examples of "good reasons" in this thread, but the problem seems to be with the GMs and Coordinators that are routinely scheduling 7 player tables. That just isn't acceptable.
If you're a walk-in and you're told there is no room for you, you have no right to be bitter about it. If you signed up to play and, either through overbooking or accepting walk-ins, you aren't going to get the experience you signed up for, you have every right to walk out. Good Customer Service is also about providing a good experience for the customers you already have, and sometimes that means not taking on new ones.
As a corollary, if you advertise (or just make it known through word of mouth) that walk-ins are welcome, you had better have the resources to accommodate them (GMs, Tables, space, etc.). If not, that's on you to make right.
|
|
Star's in my opinion except for the right to an exclusive which is a weak incentive in the first place are just a notch on someone's epeen. It means nothing, so when you tell me that he'll get there faster by doing so, I don't care.
I do care, Cheating should not be encouraged, and that is exactly what you are doing.
It is more than just the exclusive, or at least will be. Mike has made it clear there is more coming down the pipe for the Star System.
And recently myself I really wanted to GM Part II of the Special at GenCon but I did not meet the prerequisite of being a 4 Star to do so and was denied even though I am only 14 short.
I could have easily cheated and bloated my games but I have the integrity not to do so when it comes to cheating.
|
|
This is where we'll have to agree to disagree. I feel he served the greater good of PFS, and got an incidental notch on his GM "Epeen". I do not GM to get benefits, special stars, or anything beyond the satisfaction that my players had a good time, and that I'm supporting my hobby. I report because Mike Brock asks us to so that they can get a better feel for what's happening. I feel the GM had 8 players at his table, and he reported 8 players. I see no foul. I see no intention to "cheat the system". In fact I doubt the GM in question even has a single star.
I further think it's great that you organize, and you've run so many slots that you have 86 tables run. I feel Mike Brock is picking GM's on the best information he has. That you lost out may be a disservice to you and the potential players you may have run with, but I don't see a better way for Mike to choose.
Lastly, to truly put this in perspective. Do you feel there is a GM who has 4+ stars that truly doesn't deserve them and cheated their way there? I doubt you do, and thus I feel your crying foul is a moot point. No one is benefiting in any significant way from this, no one but the extra player you'd rather have given a bad experience.
|
|
Do you feel there is a GM who has 4+ stars that truly doesn't deserve them and cheated their way there? I doubt you do, and thus I feel your crying foul is a moot point. No one is benefiting in any significant way from this, no one but the extra player you'd rather have given a bad experience.
Yes I do, but we were asked not to bring it up again so I won't go into specifics..
The 8 players per table was less an issue for me, though I think that was wrong to, but bloating the GM stats.
We know there is more coming for GM stars, so there will be benefit for it. Cheating for those benefits is not fair to those that don't cheat.
I really don't care if you don't GM for Stars, if you are bloating your GM stats, you are still benefiting from the future benefits the stars will give us. And not Caring about the Stars is not an excuse to Cheat.
|
|
I really don't care if you don't GM for Stars, if you are bloating your GM stats, you are still benefiting from the future benefits the stars will give us. And not Caring about the Stars is not an excuse to Cheat.
Just to make sure you understand something very clearly. I have never and will never intentionally cheat. I know how to prep and encourage GM's in my area. I have only had one 7 player table and that's when Doug Doug asked me to. So do not imply that I cheat or will ever need to cheat. Lastly, I think I'm done discussing this with you. We will not agree, and to discuss this further threatens my goal to be friendly on here.
|
|
Just to make sure you understand something very clearly. I have never and will never intentionally cheat. I know how to prep and encourage GM's in my area. I have only had one 7 player table and that's when Doug Doug asked me to. So do not imply that I cheat or will ever need to cheat. Lastly, I think I'm done discussing this with you. We will not agree, and to discuss this further threatens my goal to be friendly on here.
That is true, You never stated that, I started using the You as a General You to who ever does the GM 1 table report it as 2.
I think I was getting angry and targeting you because you where encouraging the cheating, not doing the cheating yourself.
|
|
For the record, he did not cheat his way there. Unless D'Moon was talking about me. ;-)Do you feel there is a GM who has 4+ stars that truly doesn't deserve them and cheated their way there?Yes I do, but we were asked not to bring it up again so I won't go into specifics.
This is true, the person did not cheat to get there..
And you... hmm have you GMed 150 games? 50 different adventures? 10 or more Specials or Exclusive events? If so then you or good..;)
|
|
Since things seem to have calmed down. My stance is simply, I would rather a GM, not necessarily me, get an extra "notch" and not turn away a player, than a player get turned away, and a GM not get an extra notch. The players come first in this always, in my mind.
Though, I'll temper my statement with this. A good coordinator will have a backup GM on hand at all times. I have 2 on hand, in case a GM gets sick or can't attend like they normally would. So the above should never happen in the first place, but if absolutely 100% neccesary to not turn a player away is the only time I would be ok with it.
|
|
Since things seem to have calmed down. My stance is simply, I would rather a GM, not necessarily me, get an extra "notch" and not turn away a player, than a player get turned away, and a GM not get an extra notch. The players come first in this always, in my mind.
Though, I'll temper my statement with this. A good coordinator will have a backup GM on hand at all times. I have 2 on hand, in case a GM gets sick or can't attend like they normally would. So the above should never happen in the first place, but if absolutely 100% neccesary to not turn a player away is the only time I would be ok with it.
Though I don't fully agree with this, I think a Good coordinator if he has to needs to learn how to say No sometimes.
With that said, if you still decided to run a 8 table game, the wrong way would be to report it as 2 games, it can be done in another way that would not be cheating, well beyond that you went above the Max 7 player table.
Edit: Just this weekend, I had to say No to a player, He showed up unannounced and in the afternoon both games he played already so I had to tell him he could not play. He was fine with that knowing that there are rules and he was on the wrong side of them.
Saying No can go fine as long as you say it right.
|
|
With that said, if you still decided to run a 8 table game, the wrong way would be to report it as 2 games, it can be done in another way that would not be cheating, well beyond that you went above the Max 7 player table.
*non-snarky tone*
I am unaware of a way to do it 'legally'. Would you mind informing me, so I may do it that way, then? Please, thank you?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clarification edit: He being the GM who did this, not GodsDMit
I see it a different way in this example. I see he did what would take 2 tables, and either 2 gm's or 2 slots, and did it in one, made his players happy. I personally don't see the problem since the same amount of players are satisfied, and he gets the same amount of stars for the same amount of players.
I don't look at my slots as another slot. I look at it as X players satisfied and run through a scenario. He satisfied mathematically the same as two tables, so two tables of credit seems fair. If anything, I think by "breaking" that rule, he serviced PFS even greater, than forcing a player out. (Maybe stars should be rewarded by how many players are "serviced" vs how many tables you ran. 4 players = 1 credit etc.)
To break this in marketing terms. A customer with a bad experience tells 10 people about it. A customer with a good experience tells 3. He gained 3 people hearing good things, instead of 10 people hearing bad things. I'm not seeing how this is a loss
in the perception of the Judge at an 8 person table... he felt he did a great job.
realizing that this is just my opinion, and I wasn't there... but I would like to hear from the rest of the table before I pass judgement. Many times in the past (in home games and in OP) I have had to many players at the table. and I have shorted players because of it, sometimes when I didn't notice. I wonder if he would have noticed...
I still have yet to hear from anyone who feels that a 7 player table is better than two 3 play + Iconic tables... and why it's better.
Very well.
I feel a 7 man table is better than two 3man tables + an iconic.
First of all, when you run an iconic, you are either as GM taking time away from the encounter to run yet ANOTHER NPC, one that runs counter to the goals and combat structure of the NPCs you are already running. Sometimes, some people MAY find it impossible to keep GM knowledge of NPC abilities out of the Iconic NPC knowledge...say, taking the cleric for example. Should the cleric Iconic being run by the GM wait to cast the spell in prep for the BBEG/evil NPC's ability, or preempt it maybe by casting a spell? Or not? Seperation of NPCs for integritys sake, IMHO is better.
So, following that rule above then, now I am essentially asking one of my players to take their entire attention away from their character and split their personality to play the Iconic. Can some players do this? Yes sure, of course. But SHOULD they? IMHO it ruins the immersion of the characters.
I don't see that as a win-win situation. Either the GM or a random player now has to split time, but in a 7 man table, you don't have this issue.
Second, I have already mentioned the space concerns. Take my FLGS for example...Monday is the day they let us run PFS. But, its also one of their Magic league nights. (see, the owner/operator doesn't really want to be there super late more than a few nights in a row, so we are kind of piggybacked on a night he is already there late...a common sense approach IMHO.) So, between the small space available for play, and the corresponding necessity of two 3 man tables, now I need to take up twice as much floor space and table space. See, in this situation...not a win. the 7 man table is better.
Third, the spontaneity of sudden GMs. See, I don't really think its very fair to someone i like to call "friend" to just suddenly out of the blue say to them "Oh, yeah..see...now YOU have to run instead of play. So sorry, thems the rules! Or wait, no...SOMEONE could just bow out and say no." A 7 man table wins here yet again.
Fourth, since I am buying my scenarios and this is an out of pocket expense, now in the off chance that I have more than 6, I have to have a second copy on hand ready to go. OR, I can have one that I have already run and purchased, and have that ready to go. OR I can run one of the many low level First Steps series that can be run again and again...but I still have to have it prepped and brought with me. Now, truly this isn't a REAL handicap or limitation...but its easier and more friendly for the 7 man table and we don't have that. Let alone how many of my regulars might have already run or played in one of the adventures that I have brought with me. Or Maybe they didn't bring a second character of appropriate level with them. These aren't things I'm just pulling out of my behind here...this is a very typical scenario. See, my players sign up on Warhorn and expect to play the given scenario...but now, because some people who have the CHOICE to not seat at or run a 7 man table decided for me, I have to face any of these different problems. But NOT if I am allowed to seat 7.
Fifth, in a group of 7 players, chances are that SOMEONE will have the skill/ability/feat necessary to give the best chance of party survival, and winning the module. But now, if I split them up...maybe I get a party without a tank, or a group without a dedicated healer. Again, while this may be solved by the addition of an appropriate level Iconic, see points one and two again please.
I can keep going on if you want. These are not "out of the ordinary" type what-ifs. This is not some rambling "once in a while" type occurrence. The cost factor, the fairness factor, the floor space factor, the fun/spontaneous factor...all of these things go into EVERY game that gets run, at least in my FLGS. Do we seat 7 man tables every week? No. But I am damn sure not going to tell someone "no" and potentially ruin someones hobby night all because someone else in a different state maybe feels that they don't like a 7 man table.
Point is, you (and here I mean the proverbial all encompassing you, not Nosig in particular) should not be able to dictate to me what I can or can't do. Paizo yes, some other GM somewhere else at some mythical con, no.
And if Paizo changes this as a hard and fast 6 man table limit, they can count me out as GM, and out of the society.
And yes, I feel that strongly about it.
|
|
*non-snarky tone*
I am unaware of a way to do it 'legally'. Would you mind informing me, so I may do it that way, then? Please, thank you?
Legally you can't run an 8 player table at all, that should end that thought right there, but hypothetically if you where to run an 8 player table, still report it as 1 table leaving the 8th player out since the reporting does not matter for his PC only the chronicle sheet, and therefore not cheating the GM star system.
|
|
Star's in my opinion except for the right to an exclusive which is a weak incentive in the first place are just a notch on someone's epeen. It means nothing, so when you tell me that he'll get there faster by doing so, I don't care.
What really matters is if his players were happy and if they left thinking good things about PFS and PFRPG. If they did, then mission accomplished, pat on the back.
As far as passing judgement, has there been anyone complaining on the boards about that session? We'd be 333% more likely to hear about a bad session than a good one according to marketing statistics.
Edit: I'm sorry if you find my dismissive nature to stars insulting, but that is how I feel. Having 2, 3, or a million stars makes me no better a GM than not having them at all.
+1 gajillion. bold emphasis mine.
Fact remains, if everyone had fun and the society prospered because of it, then its a win. A few bad games here and there do not a story tell, and those who do not like the 7 man tables have their own choices to make, without having to try and dictate their desire onto the rest of us who can deal with it, or better yet thrive with it.
|
|
+1 gajillion. bold emphasis mine.
Just so you are aware, and you have the proper context there..
That post you quoted was in support of 8 man table and reporting that 8 man table as 2 games, and there fore getting credit twice for 1 game and gaming the GM star system. *He did not do it himself he just supports it being done*
If you ignore all that and make it for 7 player tables, it is a good post.