Venture-Captain, Alabama—Birmingham
|
I'm in favor of #2 for the many reasons listed by others.
If it turns out that #1 becomes the clarified rule, then please do not force the chronicle to be applied to the first character of an appropriate level. Not only would this perpetuate the issue of not always knowing which character to report the chronicle under, but I feel that this disincentives GMing as it would put people in a situation where if they do GM, they would have to apply the chronicle to a character that they want to play out (not apply any GM credit to). This would create headaches for people who plan what scenarios they will be playing (say at a convention). If they need to step up and GM at the last minute they could end up with no tier-appropriate character to play at a game they've already committed to.
+1 this.
How about the option to decline a chronicle sheet at the time it is run without losing the opportunity to ever apply it? GMs would still get star credit for running, but wouldn't get a chronicle unless they have a character they want to apply it to at that moment, and would need to run the scenario at a later date to collect that chronicle.
This would stop unscheduled tables from causing delays or mis-applied chronicles, no large collections of unassigned chronicles building up for insta-high level characters, and non-player GM's would never have to worry about registering characters at all.
This would also add a little incentive for GM's run and rerun scenarios on their own schedule. For example, I can't run level 5+ scenarios right now without either eating them, or leveling characters that I actually want to play through, but once I come up with something I don't mind artificial leveling I can run those a second time for the credit.
I'm not suggesting multi-credit for running (that would be AWESOME though) just making when you get the one that counts on your own terms.
|
|
If it turns out that #1 becomes the clarified rule, then please do not force the chronicle to be applied to the first character of an appropriate level. Not only would this perpetuate the issue of not always knowing which character to report the chronicle under, but I feel that this disincentives GMing as it would put people in a situation where if they do GM, they would have to apply the chronicle to a character that they want to play out (not apply any GM credit to). This would create headaches for people who plan what scenarios they will be playing (say at a convention). If they need to step up and GM at the last minute they could end up with no tier-appropriate character to play at a game they've already committed to.
The idea of forcing a chronicle sheet onto the first level appropriate character is a common misconception (Is it an old rule done away with? Anyone got an old guide to check?). You can apply the sheet to ANY character you have that is at level (gets credit right now) or below level (gets credit when they are appropriate level). Even though you have an appropriate level character you can choose to apply it to a lower level character instead.
|
Regarding the situation where you apply a chronicle to a character that isnt the necessary level yet...I would like to know why this cant be (or at least isnt yet) similar to when a player who plays a higher level pregen decides to apply the chronicle to a 1st level character and gain 500gp for it? That could make the difference in affording a Raise Dead when the GM gets around to playing and getting that character killed.
|
|
I didnt mean that you would HAVE to do that, but that you could. Basically it could give you a smaller boost now, opposed to a bigger boost later, so if the character dies before getting to the level which they could use the chronicle at it's intended level, that little boost might be enough to make the difference in the character getting Raised or not.
Venture-Agent, Indiana—Lafayette
|
While that is true. Fort those of us that GM so much more than we play why apply a higher tier scenario at a lower payoff, when we could just wait until we run an appropriately Tiered scenario and apply that one to the new character?
1. Obviously if GMs are required to apply the credit the first time they run a scenario (a bad idea IMHO).
2. For specific loot on the Chronicle. This one never does it for me. Most items on a Chronicle are too expensive for a number of levels after you receive it or don't fit the character's class or build. Furthermore, by the time you can afford an item on a Chronicle one can usually afford the items they want with their Fame score.
|
As I said, I prefer option #1 with the caveat that you don't have to take the chronicle for the first running. You can take it after whichever running of the scenario you want, but it would have to be done at that time.
That being said, I am also in favor of GM's earning the boons on the chronicle as well. By denying them, you will encourage people not to GM certain scenarios. I have stopped playing after I GM. There is little to no fun in that. That means if there is a cool boon would like to earn, I have to delay GM'ing until I play it, which makes it more challenging to schedule, especially for a convention.
|
|
I'm wondering why this argument is taking place. Why are we creating a new rule to remove GM flexibility about how or when their characters progress to a higher tier? Is it a 'reporting system' issue?
We are not exactly creating a new rule, but clarifying an existing one. It has been unclear how it is supposed to work and Mike is asking for feedback before he updates the text to take away the ambiguity.
There are two problems regarding this issue (may be more, but these are the ones I understand). GM's do not have access to the reporting unless they are also the organizer. That means that when they finally decide to apply the chronicle, they cannot update the reporting to reflect the GM credit. There have been a number of suggestions to make this easier, but all have come with some level of dissatisfaction. IMO, this is a minor issue since the real records are the hard copies. If your character's credit is not reported (as a GM) its not the end of the world. At least the session is being reported and the GM's star credit is entered.
The other issue is when the GM shows up to play without either a legal character or one that matches the other player's APL. Too often that GM feels entitled to hold up the game as they level-up the character, or continues to level up during the session. Both can be disruptive. I have had this happen to me and I felt disrespected as the GM, especially when suddenly the character had just the right spell, power, or magic item for the situation. That screams meta-gaming and a GM should know better. It can definitely border on the "jerk" rule depending on what is happening. You are expected to have a legal character to play, not one that will eventually be legal before the completion of the session.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other issue is when the GM shows up to play without either a legal character or one that matches the other player's APL. Too often that GM feels entitled to hold up the game as they level-up the character, or continues to level up during the session. Both can be disruptive. I have had this happen to me and I felt disrespected as the GM, especially when suddenly the character had just the right spell, power, or magic item for the situation. That screams meta-gaming and a GM should know better. It can definitely border on the "jerk" rule depending on what is happening. You are expected to have a legal character to play, not one that will eventually be legal before the completion of the session.
Ive had this happen before also, I think twice, by the same person. And I agree, it is disrespectful.
Perhaps what we need then is just to provide less leniency towards players/GMs who would do that. Allow them to be assigned whenever, but your character has to be ready to go at the start of the session, just like any other player.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I think the most significant difference between options #1 and #2 is that if #2 becomes the rule it will still be legal for people who prefer #1 to use that for assigning their own chronicles, while the converse would not be true. To me, that means that #1 would have to demonstrate some pretty strong advantages before it was codified into the PFS rules.
|
Correct. That won't change and is specifically layed out in the Guide.Just for clarity, #1 also includes the following, correct?
"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."
What happens if you assign a 5-9 scenario to you're PFS#-005 character, and then the PFS#-005 character dies at level 1? Do you loose the GM credit?
|
What happens if you assign a 5-9 scenario to you're PFS#-005 character, and then the PFS#-005 character dies at level 1? Do you loose the GM credit?Correct. That won't change and is specifically layed out in the Guide.Just for clarity, #1 also includes the following, correct?
"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."
Under the current rules, yes, you lose the GM credit. It's tied to a dead character and can never be changed to another character instead.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
The other issue is when the GM shows up to play without either a legal character or one that matches the other player's APL. Too often that GM feels entitled to hold up the game as they level-up the character, or continues to level up during the session. Both can be disruptive. I have had this happen to me and I felt disrespected as the GM, especially when suddenly the character had just the right spell, power, or magic item for the situation. That screams meta-gaming and a GM should know better. It can definitely border on the "jerk" rule depending on what is happening. You are expected to have a legal character to play, not one that will eventually be legal before the completion of the session.Ive had this happen before also, I think twice, by the same person. And I agree, it is disrespectful.
Perhaps what we need then is just to provide less leniency towards players/GMs who would do that. Allow them to be assigned whenever, but your character has to be ready to go at the start of the session, just like any other player.
Sorry. It will never happen again. I promise.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Correct. That won't change and is specifically layed out in the Guide.Just for clarity, #1 also includes the following, correct?
"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."
As this point has now come up multiple times, I'm going to speak up.
That may be what was intended, but as far as I can see this is *not* what is written in the guide. The most relevant section I can find says:
If the GM with a low-level character runs any higher tier scenarios that don’t include a subtier for her 1st-level rogue, she takes the lowest subtier Chronicle sheet from that scenario and holds it for her PC. Then, once her PC achieves the appropriate level for that Chronicle sheet, it is immediately applied.
I read this as saying that the chronicle gets applied to a nominated character as soon as that particular character achieves an appropriate level, not to the first of the GM's characters to attain that level.
|
|
Being both a GM and a player I really dislike that I have to apply a GM chronicle to a character whenever I GM. That just means I can't play that character for 1/3 or 1/6 of that level.
So far I've got a "dump character" he a 4th lvl Fighter from GMing and only played him once.
I understand Paizo has to have some way to track our GMing though. How about a GM cert that gives some token to the GM but the main purpose is for Paizo's tracking.
The token may be a small boon like maybe 5% off the cost of a 1st level wand.
Or it might be worthless in game. Like
"Next time this character plays with Venture-Captain Drandle Dreng, at the start of the adventure Dreng looks you in the eyes and
nods his head at you." or
shackes his head at you." or
winks at you." or
says "you again, don't you have anything better to do?" to you."
GM certs could all be your -0 just for record keeping.
|
|
Correct. That won't change and is specifically layed out in the Guide.Just for clarity, #1 also includes the following, correct?
"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."
As this point has now come up multiple times, I'm going to speak up.
That may be what was intended, but as far as I can see this is *not* what is written in the guide. The most relevant section I can find says:
If the GM with a low-level character runs any higher tier scenarios that don’t include a subtier for her 1st-level rogue, she takes the lowest subtier Chronicle sheet from that scenario and holds it for her PC. Then, once her PC achieves the appropriate level for that Chronicle sheet, it is immediately applied.I read this as saying that the chronicle gets applied to a nominated character as soon as that particular character achieves an appropriate level, not to the first of the GM's characters to attain that level.
I am with you on that. I actually think that it may have said that in a previous addition of the guide but it is no longer there. So either:
A) That language was removed from the guideB) It was never in the guide but a common misconception
C) The language is still there but I am blind
As I read it in the most up to date guide. We can apply the sheet to any character and are not forced to apply it to the first character to meet the level requirements.
I suggest making it simple for the GM to claim rewards.
We want to encourage folks to GM with less roadblocks.
For example, allow them to accumulate their chronicles
until they want to apply them. Chronicles are applied
with the rewards based on the level of the character.
This sounds like option #2. Note that option #1, where
they apply immediately, is really a subset of option #2.
Those who prefer option #1 can still apply immediately.
Regarding online tracking, some GM credit may be lost,
but their paper chronicle takes precedence. A similar
problem occurs with option #1 if the selected character
is not high enough level to use the reported chronicle.
Additionally, if any lower-level character is permanently
removed from play, no one wants to lose their high-level
chronicles that were applied, but were never really used.
It would be better to be able to assign them when used.
|
|
I prefer option #1. I also prefer not having to assign credit every time I GM.
If we're going to go with option #2, then I agree with this:
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.