|
Mike is having these Chronicles of GM credit not reported in the system because they are not reported at the time a problem?
Is the Boon idea you mentioned in another thread linked to either option?
I wouldn't say it is a problem. I do receive 50-100 emails a week to correct reporting issues and a majority of them are adding or changing GM credit.
Also, I am waiting on opening a discussion of the boon idea. The decision to allow GMs to receive credit for boons doesn't hinge on the outcome of the direction we choose to go with here. But, there has been confusion on this topic for as long as I can remember because it isn't definitively spelled out in the guide and we have GMs receiving credit in a multitude of ways when there should really be one clearly defined method. As I said in my original post, I'm not in favor of either. I see the merits of both and it is why I opened it for a discussion here to get feedback so when can clarify the guide once and for all in 4.2.
Once we have GM credit clearly defined, then we will delve into whether allowing boons on Chronicles to be received as GM credit should be allowed or stay the way it is.
|
|
There may not be any problem. If a GM properly plans where to assign GM credit, they will never take a low sub tier from any Chronicle sheet in their entire career. Is that what the playerbase wants? I don't know. That is why I asked.
They also never get greater rewards for "playing up."
FWIW Mike, my questions are mostly directed to everyone and not you specifically.
|
|
Another vote for #2. Trust your GMs. It's worth it to have one or two people who arrange beneficially to get item access or whatever in order to allow what I see the vast majority of the time--GMs who use credit to help make legal tables, etc.
For those recommending advanced planning, sometimes this can be done successfully at the moment of GMing, and sometimes it can't. Especially if you have a GM who is shared over multiple venues and coordinators, or co-opted to GM at the last minute. The last thing I want to see is someone saying "Sorry, I can't last-minute GM this one for you because I already have credit for this one as a GM, and if I don't play today, then it throws all my pre-planning out of order and Valeros won't hit 5th, so I'll have no character available for the 5-9 next week, and if I miss that, then 6 weeks from now I won't have a character who can play a 7-11 either."
Even with the best of planning, you can have a situation like that come up, and having hanging GM credits immediately allows a patch for those situations. Personally, I think that making #2 the clear rule will result in fewer GM credits even being applied at all (I think GMs will save them up for the most part and use them when needed, rather than being forced to apply them at once so they don't feel that they "lose" it).
|
Why does it matter if you never take the lowest subtier? You're taking the gold from the appropriate sub-tier for your character. A level 1-2 can take 1-2 gold, level 3 can take 3-4, a level 4 takes 4-5, etc. It puts you exactly on par with the amount of gold your character should have for a character of your level in PFS. I really don't see the problem there, especially since you're applying credit to a character you aren't playing and can never play that particular scenario with.
|
|
Here's some quick math. If a GM claimed credit for 33 different scenarios, and they happened to be the perfect combination of scenarios to get the most gold, when they hit 12th they would end up with less than 4,000 gp more than a player who followed this path:
Level (Subtier Played)
1 (1-2)
1 (1-2)
1 (1-2)
2 (1-2)
2 (1-2)
2 (4-5) Up
3 (1-2) Down
3 (3-4)
3 (4-5) Up
4 (3-4)
4 (3-4)
4 (4-5)
5 (4-5)
5 (4-5)
5 (5-6)
6 (3-4) Down
6 (5-6)
6 (6-7)
7 (7-8)
7 (7-8)
7 (8-9) Up
8 (7-8)
8 (8-9)
8 (8-9)
9 (8-9)
9 (7-8) Down
9 (8-9)
10 (7-8) Down
10 (10-11)
10 (10-11)
11 (10-11)
11 (10-11)
11 (10-11)
edit: They'd have a bit more gold than that because of not buying consumables
double edit: They'd also have never played their character... the whole point of this game.
triple edit: 24 weeks, 4 days Caubo.
|
The reasons why GM's apply the credit is germane because it will help decide if option #1 or #2 is a better choice for society. If it is personal choice and nothing else, then there is no argument to either option. Mike can rule how he prefers it to be.
If, however, there is a value to allowing it to improve how the society functions and perhaps encourage more play, then perhaps option #2 is better.
IMO, the clear consistency of option #1 far outweighs the minor benefits of #2 so that is my choice. YMMV
Besides, we both seem to be on the same side of this topic so why quibble over motivation? ;-)
I disagree with the sentence I bolded above. I'd say that if it's personal choice and nothing else, then giving more options to more people, so they can each go with their own personal choice, should win out. Thus, option #2 would get preference.
|
|
I currently have a character that I've only played 1 scenario with, dumped the rest with GM credit. I never ever intend on playing that character again, I just wanted a receptacle for all those credits. I actually believe the character is now 14th level (having applied RPT and Academy of Secrets to it). And it will only raise in level once I get a chance to GM the other modules and Specials. Yes, I will have a character that will one day potential reaching 20th level that I have only played once. And I'm perfectly okay with this.
|
|
So if their 8th level character gets assigned a GM chronicle for the 8-9 subtier instead of the 5-6 when they're 5th level, what's the problem? As long as they don't assign the 8-9 subtier at level 7, there's no advantaged gained, no harm to the Society.
I don't really see a problem, either. If the GM holds the chronicle until the PC hits level 8 before applying a subtier 8-9 chronicle, then the chronicle is still being applied to a character of the appropriate level. It's not like this can be used to game the system in order to get an extra reward for playing up. So I don't see any reason to try and prevent that.
As for Michael Foster's concern that some people might occasionally use this to get access to items on the chronicle at higher level, I don't really see the problem there, either. Yes, it might happen occasionally, but since the chronicle has to go to a character of the appropriate level, it doesn't really give an advantage worth worrying about. By the time they reach that level, they'll frequently have the fame for the item, anyway, especially if they're using GM credits to get there, which always get the 2 PA.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Situation:
Presume I have a 1st-level wizard. I then GM Perils of the Pirate Pact, and discover that the chronicle has
This scenario will be happening with Option #2. Is it something we want to disallow, or allow? Personally, I'm torn. But if we make a decision on that, then I think that pretty much decides the chronicle issue, because I don't think there's much else going on here.
I have never seen a big deal with either applying credit right away or holding it til you have a character that you feel it belongs on. What I am not a fan of is when a GM dumps several credits onto a character to give it several levels, whether as a last minute thing to play the character or just to use up a bunch of credits. I have seen this questioned in several threads before. It is when this happens that there is the biggest risk of rule-breaking, whether accidental or intentional. This is usually when a chronicle will be applied that the character does not qualify for. Maybe the chronicles are applied out of order or out of tier completely.
Again, I do not mind delayed application, I just think there should be a limit on how many can be applied at one time. Perhaps make the limit however many it takes for the character to level up once. After all, PCs traditionally cannot go up more than on level at a time in standard rules, and can't in PFS either, unless I missed something in the new module rules, so why should GM characters get to?
|
Honestly, I don't care either way. IMO, it will be more consistent to use option #1, but whatever. This is such a minor issue to me, Mike can rule either way and it won't hurt my feelings.
I will say this, if you show up to my table with a character outside of the APL and want to suddenly apply GM credits to make it legal to play or to get equivalent level of the others at the table, don't expect me to wait for you. When it's time to start, we start. If your character is not 100% ready to play, grab an alternate character, pregen, or get up and walk away.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This scenario will be happening with Option #2. Is it something we want to disallow, or allow?
1) I think that maximum caster level for consumables should be based on character level (perhaps level -1?).
2) So you can cherry pick a couple of items, get a very small amount more gold, get a bit more fame and prestige, and no boons.All for the low low price of donating your time, money, and sanity to run a session that further expands and grows The Society.
Still in favor of option 2 and keeping the no boons rule (or specify on each chronicle if that specific boon is available to GM award chronicles).
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
One problem I am trying to clarify is this. If a GM has all characters of levels 4 or less and GMs a Tier 5-9 scenario, they receive a Chronicle sheet that is in limbo until they have a character that achieves 5th level. However, if they are able to hold Chronicles in reserve, they could advance their character to 8th level so they can then receive the "limbo" Chronicle sheet at the higher tier, instead of what is directed in the guide currently of taking it at the lower sub tier.
Probably. But then, they are playing the character through all those scenarios with less prestige, less equipment, and less experience than they would have, had they given the PC credit immediately. And in the end, they don't get any *more* rewards than they would have otherwise.
|
|
I don't think I would be particuarly heartbroken either way this goes considering it doesn't strike me as a major issue, though after reading this discussion I'm inclinded to lean towards #2. In my experience it is only a very small minority of players/GMs who actually Ever buy anything off a Chronical sheet. GMs especially considering they typically get max PP anyways. Buying outside of your what your Fame grants you is usually rediculously expensive for the level you are at, and would likely cripple your character to try purchacing for a period of time. How many items off a Chronicle sheet would even imbalance a character anyways?
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Lafayette
|
Until recently I have thought that Option #2 was always an option.
I GM 90% of the time and outside of the first level or two I'd prefer to play for the character's experience. Therefore for most of the last year I haven't claimed many GM credit for any characters. I will claim a chronicle or two for a new character so that when I play with a group of new 1st or 2nd level characters I can have some additional resources available to help ensure that the party survives. Also as I GM, if I come across a Chronicle that I think has something appropriate for one of my characters I will claim that one and apply it immediately.
I have only used Option #2 once to raise a character to an appropriate level to play with my fellow GMs from afar during Slot Zero before a Con. People I rarely if ever get to play with. And I had it completely ready to play well before the Slot. This was bitter sweet because, although I got to play with friends, I lost the experience of playing those adventures with that character. I would like to have this option available, however I can live without it.
My biggest concern is being required to apply a Chronicle to a character the first time I GM a scenario or not at all. I don't think that this is an intent, however some of the posts herein and of late have seemed to point in this direction.
Last year at GenCon it the scenarios that I GMed on Thursday and Friday and did not add a -Character Number to the event tracking slip got applied to my 1st Character by default. A character that died the first time I played him, at my first Society game, at my first Con. {Thanks Dragnmoon ;)} Not a big deal for me at the moment, since I usually don't take GM credit. (I'll ask to get it fixed eventually)
|
Honestly, I don't care either way. IMO, it will be more consistent to use option #1, but whatever. This is such a minor issue to me, Mike can rule either way and it won't hurt my feelings.
I will say this, if you show up to my table with a character outside of the APL and want to suddenly apply GM credits to make it legal to play or to get equivalent level of the others at the table, don't expect me to wait for you. When it's time to start, we start. If your character is not 100% ready to play, grab an alternate character, pregen, or get up and walk away.
I agree with this, Stop it Bob!!!!!
To me it does not matter if we use Option 1 or 2, either way I still will be using Option 1.
I think my main issue against Option 2 is it is inconsistent with how credit is applied by normal rules. As soon as a player sits down they have to decide which character is getting the credit, why do we need different rules for GMs?
It seems so hypocritical to me that many of the people wanting option 2 are the same ones that where adamant against the old Module rules because it was inconsistent with normal PFS rules. There main reasoning for changing them was so they would be consistent with the normal rules. Now they are asking for rules that are not consistent with the normal rules, and that is just hypocritical in my eyes.
So do we want consistent rules throughout PFS or Not? If not why is it ok for this but not the Modules?
|
|
I personally use option #1 the majority of the time, but occasionally use option #2. Again this is the issue of making new and more restrictive rules to "solve" something that is not even a problem. The consensus, however, seems to be for option #2.
I'm not looking to make a new, more restrictive rule.. I'm looking to get feedback and then put clear wording in the guide so everyone is operating under the same set of rules. And I agree, it seems the consensus is for #2. I will leave it up another day or two so it allows more people to comment of they like.
|
I will say this, if you show up to my table with a character outside of the APL and want to suddenly apply GM credits to make it legal to play or to get equivalent level of the others at the table, don't expect me to wait for you. When it's time to start, we start. If your character is not 100% ready to play, grab an alternate character, pregen, or get up and walk away.
I don't see this as being any different or special for GMs versus players. If you are playing your third game of the day and you spent your lunch hour BSing with friends and show up just in time to my game, don't expect for me to wait for you to level up your character or go shopping (unless you have a list prepared).
Whether it's a GM credits or otherwise, be ready when it's show time.
|
|
I'm for #2
The last GM credit (I remember) that I applied was at GenCon.
I prefer to play my characters and don't care much that I might have 30 unclaimed GM credits. But I would like - legally - use one or two of them if needed to get into a relevant tier.
But I see one other issue - reporting. If Mike gets 100 e-mails a week to change GM credits or apply them late then this is valuable time of Mike wasted.
As GM be considerate about organisers when asking for #2. It should not become a burden for organisers or Mike. That was the reason I applied my GenCon credit directly. It would be a shame if we need to go #1 just because #2 causes extra issues to organisers and Paizo.
|
|
But I see one other issue - reporting. If Mike gets 100 e-mails a week to change GM credits or apply them late then this is valuable time of Mike wasted.
As GM be considerate about organisers when asking for #2. It should not become a burden for organisers or Mike. That was the reason I applied my GenCon credit directly. It would be a shame if we need to go #1 just because #2 causes extra issues to organisers and Paizo.
Yeah, I mentioned this part earlier. It would work fine if there was an option for reporters, or a code for character number, to report the GM's character as "TBD." Then, GMs could have the option to input the character number from their own account.
However, I know that Gary and the rest of the tech side of Paizo are very busy already, and I suspect their to-do list would have this option pretty far down.
|
|
Option #2.
I've dumping GM chronicles into new characters. To complete the table recording I only need a character number (-X), name and faction. When that character gets to level 2, I start dumping into another new character.
Then I go back and say to myself, "Nuts, I've got a second level character of the XXXXXX faction (since I have to assign faction for the chronicle). Now what kind of character should I build?
Sorry Dragnmoon, you say most GMs are organized, but I don't really fall in that group.
The thing I dislike the most about assigning GM chronicles is have a higher level character that I haven't played.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Right now, I have a lot of GM credit assigned to my #7 PC, whom I haven't played yet. As sort of a holding area for the credits. I think the character has enough low-level GM credit to be 2nd level, but I'd have to check. There are several credits for Tiers 3-7, 5-9, and 7-11 there.
So, let me ask you folks: right now, under Option #1, if I play the character once and he dies irretrievably (it happens with 2nd level PCs) all of that GM credit gets wiped away.
Does that strike you as a feature or a bug?
Venture-Captain, Oregon—Portland
|
Right now, I have a lot of GM credit assigned to my #7 PC, whom I haven't played yet. As sort of a holding area for the credits. I think the character has enough low-level GM credit to be 2nd level, but I'd have to check. There are several credits for Tiers 3-7, 5-9, and 7-11 there.
So, let me ask you folks: right now, under Option #1, if I play the character once and he dies irretrievably (it happens with 2nd level PCs) all of that GM credit gets wiped away.
Does that strike you as a feature or a bug?
Wouldn't this be the same problem for someone playing a high-level pre-gen under the new rules? Or is it different for GMs?
As a mentally handicapped GM, specifically handicapped towards memory and such, I've never had any issue remembering which characters I have that I can give my GM credit to. I'm not really understanding the hardship some are saying they have with this, but that's just me.
Also, for those who don't care about the credit, and so don't keep track of it, why would this be an issue? Just dump the credit all on one character, regardless of level, and now you never have to remember which character to use, problem solved.
Either way I'm not really concerned if Mike changes the rule, I'll stick to option #1 as I always have =)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Now just to be clear, we ARE saying that even if we do #2, the final arrangement of credits on a character must be a legal progression from level 1 to level X, right?
I.e., if you dump 12 chronicles onto a brand new character, 6 of them would HAVE to be subtier 1-2, 3 more would be either 1-2 or 3-4, and the other 3 would be 3-4 or 4-5.
Right? We're not talking about creating a new character and then dumping 12 chronicles on him with all of them being subtier 4-5?
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
I've been doing option 1 for my characters, but option 2 would be nice. However, it would be better if it were possible to edit our gm credits ourselves even if we're not the organizer. Something like that would save you those 50-100 emails a week (maybe) and allow situations like Cactus-Jack mentioned (not putting a char number and it going to 1st char) to be resolvable by the GM who got the credit.
So far most of the games I've run I've recorded, and like I said I've used option 1, but I can see that running at a con if I don't know who I want to apply the credit to, it could cause me headaches later when I finally decide to apply it.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I guess I had always assumed that Option 2 was the case already. I actually was a bit blindsided when I went to run a game at a local convention recently, and I had to report a faction on my session reporting sheet. I hadn't thought ahead to which PC I would use for that game, so I had to stop for a second and think about which faction I was likely to pick for my next character.
Still, I like Option 2 because it allows for the most flexibility. GMs spend a lot of time preparing for and running games; letting them defer the paperwork of applying chronicles to PCs (who will rarely get played anyway) is a good thing.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
My gut reaction to what would happen if GMs could float their chronicles and then apply them in whatever order suited them was "hey, that's not fair!"... but then I decided that no, it's NOT fair, and that's GOOD. Let GMs have that tiny little edge for their troubles.
I vote #2, as long as it wouldn't be an administrative headache for anyone.
|
|
I would suggest that if Option 2 did get put into effect that it not be required (But an option) for GMs to report which character gets the chronicle so Organizers have less of a headache latter on putting the information in.
I actually think that if you go with option 2 you should give the GM's the power to assign chronicles to characters online themselves. It saves the organizer a headache and solves the problem of finding said organizer later (Or emailing Michael) at a later date.
If we are not comfortable giving GM's that option then I say stick with option 1.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I would suggest that if Option 2 did get put into effect that it not be required (But an option) for GMs to report which character gets the chronicle so Organizers have less of a headache latter on putting the information in.I actually think that if you go with option 2 you should give the GM's the power to assign chronicles to characters online themselves. It saves the organizer a headache and solves the problem of finding said organizer later (Or emailing Michael) at a later date.
If we are not comfortable giving GM's that option then I say stick with option 1.
+1
|
|
This thread is tl;dr.
I generally try to stick to #1, though I am not a fan of the "If a GM judges a game for which they do not have an appropriately tiered character, they apply the Chronicle to their first character to reach the appropriate level." part of it.
If Ive got a chronicle for a 5-9 scenario, and I want to apply it to character -4 so they gain the use of it when they hit level 5, but my -3 character hits level 5 first, why should I be forced into applying the credit to -3?
Anyway, like I said, I try to stick to #1, though I dont really see anything wrong with #2, as long as the GM is applying them in the correct order.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
If I were rewriting the rules from scratch, I'd suggest the following:
When you GM a session, you get a GM chronicle for the scenario. If you assign the chronicle to a named character at the time of the award you get access to the (subtier-appropriate) rewards on the chronicle.
Alternatively, you can save it as a more restricted GM chronicle. This can be applied at any level up to the levels named on the sub-tier for full XP/PP credit and a fixed (character-level-specific) GP award, but with no access to named items (or boons, should they become accessible).
This means that a GM who likes playing (and GM-ing) in the 5-9 tier can use GM credits from tier 5-9 sessions to advance low-levels characters to 5th level.
|
|
Selectively applying them can, at best, keep the judge's PC level appropriate for wealth and Chronicle listed options.
Very close. See this post.
|
|
Here's some quick math. If a GM claimed credit for 33 different scenarios, and they happened to be the perfect combination of scenarios to get the most gold, when they hit 12th they would end up with less than 4,000 gp more than a player who followed this path:
** spoiler omitted **
edit: They'd have a bit more gold than that because of not buying consumables
double edit: They'd also have never played their character... the whole point of this game.
triple edit: 24 weeks, 4 days Caubo.
I'm actually confused why on the chart you have a 4-5 at level 2 and a 1-2 at level 3?
I have a spreadsheet with average gold per scenario calculations, and it seems that a GM who did this would have ~122,000 gp at the end of the 33 XP. Note that the player would have acquired the exact same amount of gold, but would (most likely) have used part of that towards some consumables.
After recently doing a group through Eyes of the Ten, this was slightly below the average wealth of each player. Obviously some people are playing up, which is not possible with this GM scenario.
Note This assumes applying 6 subtier 1-2 chronicles, 3 subtier 3-4, 3 subtier 4-5, 3 subtier 5-6, 3 subtier 6-7, 3 subtier 7-8, 6 subtier 8-9, and finally 6 subtier 10-11 chronicles. While this isn't the absolutely highest gold possible, it shows a good average excluding gold from a season 0 chronicle.
|
|
Mike Instead of assigining GM's credit for each chronicle sheet why don't you start a GM credit bank. The GM would gain max gold for the level of the character that he assigned his credits to Say you assigned 3 credits to a 3rd level fighter to make him 4th level he would get X gold based on the WBL table for the diffrence in levels 3 and 4 and of course the GM would get full Prestige points.
Also I recomend that for each star a GM gains he gets a free Boon. I think this would encourage people to GM at Conventions and their local game stores and this also would allow those GM's who cannot go to Cons to get some Boons.
|
|
Mike Instead of assigining GM's credit for each chronicle sheet why don't you start a GM credit bank. The GM would gain max gold for the level of the character that he assigned his credits to Say you assigned 3 credits to a 3rd level fighter to make him 4th level he would get X gold based on the WBL table for the diffrence in levels 3 and 4 and of course the GM would get full Prestige points.
I like this idea, but what about this modification. Instead of receiving a Chronicle for the module in question, a GM could instead receive a generic "GM certificate" every time they GM'd that would provide level appropriate gold and prestige when applied to any character.
For reporting purposes, GMs could be allowed to "create a new session" on the website when they wanted to apply one of these, and simply report "GM certificate" slot in the normal system.
It would be easy to track if people were abusing the system, as the number of GM'd modules would be less than the number of claimed GM credits.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Mike Instead of assigining GM's credit for each chronicle sheet why don't you start a GM credit bank. The GM would gain max gold for the level of the character that he assigned his credits to Say you assigned 3 credits to a 3rd level fighter to make him 4th level he would get X gold based on the WBL table for the diffrence in levels 3 and 4 and of course the GM would get full Prestige points.I like this idea, but what about this modification. Instead of receiving a Chronicle for the module in question, a GM could instead receive a generic "GM certificate" every time they GM'd that would provide level appropriate gold and prestige when applied to any character.
That's pretty close to what I was suggesting; the biggest difference is that I was limiting the application to characters at or below the level of the chronicle sheet a GM could get today.
I deliberately didn't raise the question of whether a GM would be able to get credit for running the same scenario more than once - that's a whole other discussion.
|
|
No offense to either Lou or Tristan, but I think both of those ideas will make the process of a GM gaining credit needlessly more complicated than it currently is.
Id much rather stick with everyone (player and GM alike) gaining a chronicle, opposed to GMs getting a 'credit' and players gaining a chronicle.