Perhaps this is my fault, but I have so many characters and have played and run so many scenarios that keeping track of everything is becoming a bit of a nightmare. At times the planning aspect feels more like a tax return than a game. So if my local VC asks for GMs at a convention and I think it's a great opportunity to refresh or update my character stable with GM credit, I have to spend several hours working out what I can run and what I can't, and then face the prospect of reading and preparing several new scenarios all at the same time. In fact the effort required usually exceeds the desire to volunteer in the first place and I don't bother.
Now if I was an angel then doubtless the happy smiling faces of the players would be reward enough (until I TPK them in Dalsine Affair). But I'm not an angel and GM credit does influence my decision to run those extra games from time to time. I already GM for both of my local groups so this is just about mobilising GMs to run a few more.
So I'd like to make a request for a generic GM chronicle. It just needs to provide 1xp, 2pp and character-level appropriate gold (1-2,3-4,5-6 etc). I don't think boons or equipment are necessary for this chronicle and we could just use the white space in the middle to summarise what our characters were doing to get that xp (with some very concise fiction). Most importantly the chronicle should be useable any number of times for the same character (even if awarded for running the same scenario repeatedly).
I think that will provide two benefits:
1. Liberate the GMs that use GM credit from a lot of the paperwork and make it easier (and more likely) for them to just say yes when asked to run something.
2. Make it easier for coordinators to plan games at events as there'll be less resistance to running certain scenarios, or running the same scenario twice.
I don't want to replace the existing GM credit scheme, just to add this as a simpler opt-in alternative.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I would support this, as I think that it would encourage GMming and make planning game days easier. If there is some concern about scenario spamming, then perhaps these chronicles would require signing by a Venture Officer? I would imagine that a VO would avoid letting someone run something too many times.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Why would they want to limit the number of times that someone ran a scenario?
Mike has me running King of Storval Stairs 7 times at GenCon. That'll be a dozen times for me.
I'm not worried about GM credits. A simple tracking system is: log into your account, look at your GM credit tab. Browsers have a search function.
THis is how I figured out I do indeed still get to play City of Strangers 2 sometime soon....
Short, short version: I don't agree that this would be a positive addition to the game - we need to encourage running a variety of scenarios so that players get offered things THEY can play.
But having a scenario that you have polished to a fine sheen is also a good thing.
I agree that variety is a good thing, but in many local game days, it's entirely possible to have a GM run something on 2 consecutive weeks so that everybody can play it without being spoiled. That's really convenient. I've done it with a couple of scenarios, and hope to do it again in the future.
|
Perhaps this is my fault, but I have so many characters and have played and run so many scenarios that keeping track of everything is becoming a bit of a nightmare. At times the planning aspect feels more like a tax return than a game. So if my local VC asks for GMs at a convention and I think it's a great opportunity to refresh or update my character stable with GM credit, I have to spend several hours working out what I can run and what I can't, and then face the prospect of reading and preparing several new scenarios all at the same time. In fact the effort required usually exceeds the desire to volunteer in the first place and I don't bother.
Now if I was an angel then doubtless the happy smiling faces of the players would be reward enough (until I TPK them in Dalsine Affair). But I'm not an angel and GM credit does influence my decision to run those extra games from time to time. I already GM for both of my local groups so this is just about mobilising GMs to run a few more.
So I'd like to make a request for a generic GM chronicle. It just needs to provide 1xp, 2pp and character-level appropriate gold (1-2,3-4,5-6 etc). I don't think boons or equipment are necessary for this chronicle and we could just use the white space in the middle to summarise what our characters were doing to get that xp (with some very concise fiction). Most importantly the chronicle should be useable any number of times for the same character (even if awarded for running the same scenario repeatedly).
I think that will provide two benefits:
1. Liberate the GMs that use GM credit from a lot of the paperwork and make it easier (and more likely) for them to just say yes when asked to run something.
2. Make it easier for coordinators to plan games at events as there'll be less resistance to running certain scenarios, or running the same scenario twice.I don't want to replace the existing GM credit scheme, just to add this as a simpler opt-in alternative.
Just some basic questions for clairty's sake.
Don't you have a chronicle for each of the games you have taken GM Credit for?
It might be a good idea to make yourself a "laundry list" or matrix of everything you have taken for credit and keep it on hand so you can just compare that list to what needs to be run?
It sounds like you may have already done this a few times but did not keep the results, why recreate the wheel every time?
Nate Meyers
NYC PFS Player/GM
Short, short version: I don't agree that this would be a positive addition to the game - we need to encourage running a variety of scenarios so that players get offered things THEY can play.
To get my two stars I've run 28 different scenarios, with the 29th one coming next weekend. One of those was Godsmouth and I did run that a second time, along with Shades part 3 at the request of a local group. I have no incentive to run any of the others a second time though.
Spamming could be a problem if GMs don't want to spend the time preparing something new, but if they get new players every time then why not let them? If they don't get the players then they won't get the credit, so there is a natural limit in there.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
There is a fail safe built in to the variety of scenarios being run by a GM. If a GM has access to 12 different players he will, at most, be able to run a single scenario three times. After that, all his players will have played it.
I know the "shelf life" of a scenario in my store is roughly 6 runs for new stuff. As they get older, and newer players come into the game, we break them out again, but the scenario that has been run the most has still only seen play 9 times during the last three years.
|
|
There is a fail safe built in to the variety of scenarios being run by a GM. If a GM has access to 12 different players he will, at most, be able to run a single scenario three times. After that, all his players will have played it.
At a recent local convention, I ran the same scenario three times. I could have run it three additional times at that same con. And that scenario has been played locally more than once post-convention, as well. Granted, I'm including the special circumstances of a convention in my example, but still, I could have easily run that particular scenario eight times in the last two months.
Now, if I'm understanding the proposal correctly, If I'd done so, I could have applied GM credit from all eight sessions to the same character, yes?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't really start to enjoy a scenario until I have run it 3 or 4 times as a GM. That is my motivation to run a scenario multiple times; the players get a progressively better experience. I concur with TetsujinOni. In addition, all the work prepping a scenario is done on the front end. GMing the same scenario multiple times is like running downhill.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do not like this idea. It could be abused with ease.
I have not put GM credit on a character for around a year. I found that by taking all the GM credit. My characters were leveling too fast. I would rather enjoy playing them up.
I am the other side of the coin I guess. I enjoy running as much, or more, then I do playing.
Don't you have a chronicle for each of the games you have taken GM Credit for?
Yes, but that's 28 GM credits and 93 player chronicles (on a rough count) spread across 12 played characters. I then need to keep up to date with the games planned by my local group, which is one spreadsheet (not necessarily up to date) tracking games played by eight people, plus occasionally cross-referencing lists of games provided by other players in a different group to try and find something I can GM for them. I haven't played online for ages, but for a while there was yet another Google sheet I had to consider which tracked a completely different 30+ players.
Actually a convention might be easier to organise than our local games as there's less need to accomodate the regulars - just pick a game and wait for sign-ups.
It's not that the tracking can't be done, just that the effort required is growing all the time. I've just had to cancel my sign up for a game I was sure I'd never played this morning, and I only discovered it by accident by counting the sessions just now.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
There is a fail safe built in to the variety of scenarios being run by a GM. If a GM has access to 12 different players he will, at most, be able to run a single scenario three times. After that, all his players will have played it.At a recent local convention, I ran the same scenario three times. I could have run it three additional times at that same con. And that scenario has been played locally more than once post-convention, as well. Granted, I'm including the special circumstances of a convention in my example, but still, I could have easily run that particular scenario eight times in the last two months.
Now, if I'm understanding the proposal correctly, If I'd done so, I could have applied GM credit from all eight sessions to the same character, yes?
I can easily see where I would be able to run a scenario over and over into perpetuity; I'm right there with you. So, yes, that should be considered when thinking this through.
But most GMs, I suspect, won't be able to go TOO far with something like that.
Personally, I'd rather just have the option to use the credit in a different way. I have 31 scenarios that I haven't even taken credit on because I don't want to bother myself with the work. If, on the other hand, I could simply apply 2 PP to a character that isn't already at full Fame, I'd be pretty happy with that.
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stormfriend, when I first started running games, I was like you, I wanted to run something new every time so that I could get character credit for it. After a while, I started enjoying running scenarios just for the sake of running them for different groups. It is fun to see how different player/character combinations handle the same challenges in different ways. I'm at the point that I could really care less if I get character credit or not, now I'm all about the table credit so I can get my 5th star. ;)
As others have said, this is something that unfortunately I don't think will ever see the light of day. If you are only running games for the character credit, there's still a ton of scenarios for you to run.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stormfriend, when I first started running games, I was like you, I wanted to run something new every time so that I could get character credit for it. After a while, I started enjoying running scenarios just for the sake of running them for different groups. It is fun to see how different player/character combinations handle the same challenges in different ways. I'm at the point that I could really care less if I get character credit or not, now I'm all about the table credit so I can get my 5th star. ;)
As others have said, this is something that unfortunately I don't think will ever see the light of day. If you are only running games for the character credit, there's still a ton of scenarios for you to run.
I will add to this that I actually try not to take GM credit over a certain level. This is because I like playing high level games, so I really would prefer to play my characters through 5-12 as opposed to GM credit them up. I will take the GM credit if I never have the chance to run the scenario again or if there's a boon that's good for one of my characters and I have already played it with a different characters, but otherwise I would prefer to play them through their fun levels.
But yeah, all about the table credit for my 5th star...
I will add to this that I actually try not to take GM credit over a certain level. This is because I like playing high level games, so I really would prefer to play my characters through 5-12 as opposed to GM credit them up. I will take the GM credit if I never have the chance to run the scenario again or if there's a boon that's good for one of my characters and I have already played it with a different characters, but otherwise I would prefer to play them through their fun levels.
I like creating characters and can burn huge amounts of GM credit on them, even if they only get played once. I just find character creation really interesting and the need to start at 1st level rather boring (as I've been doing the same thing for 20 years). GM credit is a great way to do something unusual. If I'm playing a peasant I don't mind starting at 1st; if I'm playing a character with much backstory then I prefer to start higher.
My high level character also died a little while ago and although I raised her I never played her again. I find raise dead detracts from the suspense and fear that any combat should instil, so when a character dies I consider it game over and move on. That's also why I care about GMs running RAW so much, but that's another conversation. :-) I would far rather fast track another character with GM credit until she reaches the same level and then play from there. I tend not to use credit for 7-11 otherwise, and only did that for my current high level character to qualify for the retirment arc at the same time as the rest of the local group.
I agree about 5-12 being the fun levels by the way; if the game started at 5th level I wouldn't care about GM credit anywhere near as much.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
I usually have a chronicle with the words (GM Credit) written above the box that you put your character name/number/faction in. Right now, when you run the scenario the first time, you also get the boons for the tier the character would fall into.
As far as getting multiple character credit for running the same scenario more than once (other than We Be Goblins and other 1st level mods), why would you want to level your characters that quickly?
|
|
We have to remember there's 2 types of GMs here - ones that don't mind GMing for no credit, and ones that prefer/only want to GM for credit.
The goals are:
- Make GMs who want to GM for credit more settled with less prep work
- Make it easier on event co-ordinators to get some GMs to GM more
Limited re-runs (ie. more than one exp per scenario when GMing) might be the answer, rather than unlimited.
|
|
I GM for the group I play in because I know it is fair. I believe everyone should GM one in every 5 times they are at the table or provide support to for a DM.
Any reason to encourage more people to DM I am all for.
I agree with the few posters in saying that they only apply the credit to lower level characters. Unless there is a specific boon(ready wipple). If i got extra credit it would be so I can have a character at every low teir.
Right now I have 4 characters at 5...
|
|
At one point players could play through a scenario one time per each faction that they had a character with -- so in essence a player could play each scenario 5 times (original factions at the time). GMs still only got 1 credit for GMing it and if they ran it before playing they couldn't go back and play the scenario.
This created a problem.
So the rules were changed.. 1 player credit, 1 GM credit and the GM could play after they ran it. This way players and GM stay on an even keel with getting chronicles and neither one outlevels the other.
I don't feel there needs to be a change, right now it's fair across the board. People step up to help GM and allow other GMs a chance to play.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a previous organized play campaign, Living Greyhawk, and in Season 0 & 1 of PFS, GMs received no credit for running scenarios. I was against the idea when Joshua Frost asked for our thoughts. I understand I am biased, so my argument against increasing the already generous GM rewards won't have much traction with those who are in favor. I suggest that a GM motivated by getting another Chronicle sheet may do more harm than good. I'd rather play under a GM who enjoys GMing for the sake of the community, because he or she wants to hone their skills or because they just have more fun that way. When someone says they're capable of GMing but won't do it because there is nothing in it for them, it makes a statement. Yes, the campaign needs more GMs. We might net a few more through further relaxing the rules. But I dislike what our community is losing in the exchange.
I welcome discussion, but I have said my piece. If Mike Brock comes into this thread and says he's considering this proposal, I'll be concerned. Otherwise, enjoy the academic discussion :)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
In a previous organized play campaign, Living Greyhawk, and in Season 0 & 1 of PFS, GMs received no credit for running scenarios. I was against the idea when Joshua Frost asked for our thoughts. I understand I am biased, so my argument against increasing the already generous GM rewards won't have much traction with those who are in favor. I suggest that a GM motivated by getting another Chronicle sheet may do more harm than good. I'd rather play under a GM who enjoys GMing for the sake of the community, because he or she wants to hone their skills or because they just have more fun that way. When someone says they're capable of GMing but won't do it because there is nothing in it for them, it makes a statement. Yes, the campaign needs more GMs. We might net a few more through further relaxing the rules. But I dislike what our community is losing in the exchange.
I welcome discussion, but I have said my piece. If Mike Brock comes into this thread and says he's considering this proposal, I'll be concerned. Otherwise, enjoy the academic discussion :)
I have to admit, I am not much interested in multiple credits for a single scenario, either. That route simply opens the door to arguments in favor of replay, and I am as firmly entrenched against that as it is possible to be.
But I will still say I like the idea of a "generic" chronicle. Either take character credit for an in-tier character, or apply that 7-11 chronicle as a mere 2 PP to a lower tier character (no xp or gold). Or gold and no PP, or whatever seems feasible. Because, as others have mentioned, I want to play my characters at higher tiers, not level them up via GM credit; thus, my GM credit from the higher tier scenarios just gets ignored. Like I said above, I don't even bother crediting a "ghost" as that's too much paperwork for something I'm very unlikely to ever use.
So, that's my contribution to the academic discussion.
|
|
I think I shadow Drogon as well. I, like Doug, am vehemently against multiple GM credit from the same scenario. Even in any form. But I do support the idea of a generic sheet INSTEAD of the sheet from the scenario I GM. Most of the time I take the credit for a scenario is a 1-5 or a 3-7. I may take a 5-9 on the lower subtier. But every time I GM a 7-11 I barely ever want to apply it. I want to play my characters at those tiers, but I'd like to skip levels 1-2 when possible. Being able to get a generic sheet with gold appropriate to whichever tier my character happens to be at would be a pretty cool idea.
|
|
Well I like the generic sheet. I also don't mind the idea of multiple credits per scenario. GMing is generally a lot more work than playing, and hence rewarding people for that is not a bad idea. A lot of GMs in my area go to elaborate extents on module prep(pre-made maps, even one 3D model of an encounter area). Also running a module multiple times makes the additional runs more polished.
What I'd suggest, though, since the reward doesn't need to be as high on iterations is to give a lessened reward. I think that a full reward on the first run is a good thing since people should not have to eat a module and get no credit for it. Since the sheets already have tabulations for going slow (so half gold and XP) why not just make that the reward for runs past the first one? Perhaps a smaller number could be used if desired.
I run a local living campaign in my area, and we use normal XP values. Modules are worth 1000-1400 XP (depends on APL), but GMs get full credit the first time, and 250XP for every extra run.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover
|
I really like that GM´s get a chronicle, because if ever someone else is going to GM here, i can have a character in range of the other player characters and don´t need to "play up" with a level 1 character or something worse.
Running scenarios mutliple times is more an online thing i guess, because i think most player bases are kind of limited, as others pointed out above. So offline, a scenario would be played 3 times in average probably.
I suggest that a GM motivated by getting another Chronicle sheet may do more harm than good. I'd rather play under a GM who enjoys GMing for the sake of the community, because he or she wants to hone their skills or because they just have more fun that way.
What about an event coordinator who desperately needs another GM and asks a player to step forward at the last minute? Or a VC/VL who encourages players to take up the GM mantle in order to expand the game in their area? Or GMs in local groups who'll run a game because it's their turn but prefer to play when possible? Are you saying that all those GMs do more harm than good because they had to be encouraged?
People are motivated by different things, but their reasons for running a game have no bearing on the way they run it or their behaviour at the table. In fact it's quite possible that GMs who had to be encouraged to run something end up doing it better than the GMs who never play, as they're better able to see the game from the players point of view.
|
|
My only thoughts on additional GM credit (and sorry if this has been addressed in other posts) would be specially issued sheets -- I'm imagining watermarked pdfs -- rewarded at the Star levels (so a maximum of five possible). I'm not even sure that I would want them to be XP & GP related, because I'm sure that this could be a cool way for people to earn society titles and acclaim for their PCs.
I will admit that I do not frequently judge the same scenario multiple times, but there came a point where I stopped caring about GM credit except for low level (1st-3rd) PCs.
|
|
I suggest that a GM motivated by getting another Chronicle sheet may do more harm than good. I'd rather play under a GM who enjoys GMing for the sake of the community, because he or she wants to hone their skills or because they just have more fun that way.What about an event coordinator who desperately needs another GM and asks a player to step forward at the last minute? Or a VC/VL who encourages players to take up the GM mantle in order to expand the game in their area? Or GMs in local groups who'll run a game because it's their turn but prefer to play when possible? Are you saying that all those GMs do more harm than good because they had to be encouraged?
People are motivated by different things, but their reasons for running a game have no bearing on the way they run it or their behaviour at the table. In fact it's quite possible that GMs who had to be encouraged to run something end up doing it better than the GMs who never play, as they're better able to see the game from the players point of view.
I have to disagree ... My experience is such that GMs running for the credit alone are simply "turning and burning" the scenarios. They don't take the time to get into the flavor of them. They haven't invested time in learning the story (I'm sure there are some exceptions, just not in my experience); in contrast, GMs that have run a scenario more than once, have taken the time to get into the story are generally more fun and entertaining judges.
Stormfriend, while I see your point about the motivation for some GMs, the fact is that there has to be a balance between player and GM. Right now we have that balance and it was a hard fought road for a lot of us to get to that balance. And as GMs is was a hard fought road to just to get the credit we have now coming to us. That is why you see a lot of us naysaying this idea.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stormfriend, while I see your point about the motivation for some GMs, the fact is that there has to be a balance between player and GM. Right now we have that balance and it was a hard fought road for a lot of us to get to that balance. And as GMs is was a hard fought road to just to get the credit we have now coming to us. That is why you see a lot of us naysaying this idea.
I'm not asking for anything new or outrageous. I'm just asking that running the same scenario twice provides similar rewards to running two different scenarios, and that the rewards themselves be simplified to cut down on paperwork. If that encourages a few people to run extra games, or makes event coordination easier, then we all benefit.
There are no balance issues as GM credit characters will generally have more appropriate WBL than standard player characters; and although they may have slightly higher Prestige they won't get as many boons.
In terms of turning and burning scenarios to get credit that's actually more likely if a GM has to run different scenarios to get the credit. If they can just keep running the same scenario as long as they have new players then they'll get to know the story almost by accident as they've invested so much time in running it - and that's more fun for the GM as well as the players. Maybe my suggestion will even reduce the number of GMs providing poor experiences, whilst maintaining the same number of games?
|
|
I'm not asking for anything new or outrageous. I'm just asking that running the same scenario twice provides similar rewards to running two different scenarios ...
I believe many have already indicated they feel this is both new and a little outrageous.
GM Chronicles were implemented (not long ago), because if you ran a Scenario before playing it, you had to eat it - no Chronicle, ever.
Now you can earn 1 Chronicle for an adventure by playing it and another for GMing it - in either order.
Since GMs can get a Chronicle for playing the adventure now, the logical step if a change was made, would be to remove GM credit.
I don't see this happening as the Chronicle you can earn as a GM is a nice reward for your efforts to read and learn the adventure and run it at least once. Running it additional times takes far less prep work, and the time spent actually running the adventure should be enjoyable on its own - otherwise, why would you be GMing in the first place?
|
|
I have to disagree ... My experience is such that GMs running for the credit alone are simply "turning and burning" the scenarios. They don't take the time to get into the flavor of them. They haven't invested time in learning the story (I'm sure there are some exceptions, just not in my experience); in contrast, GMs that have run a scenario more than once, have taken the time to get into the story are generally more fun and entertaining judges.
And in my experience the quality of the GM is solely a function of the quality of the GM, not some alleged issue of motivations.
See, now that my experience and you experience contradict, we have a null set so we can get on to real arguments.
How about these, do you think the GMs you know to be top quality would stop running modules if they were rewarded for them? Do you think every potential GM who might be swayed by more GM credit is by default bad?
the time spent actually running the adventure should be enjoyable on its own - otherwise, why would you be GMing in the first place?
You must live in one of the seven heavens where GMs grow on trees and you just have to pluck a juicy golden one that's brimming over with the love of the game. :-)
I've actually met a GM like that and he was great, but most of us just take our turn and make the most of it. It *can be* enjoyable, and seeing how different players respond *is* interesting, and we *do* run it to the best of our ability every time - but we would always choose to play rather than GM given the choice and therefore providing encouragement of some kind (whether a carrot or a gentle stick) goes a long way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had plenty of judges who judge all the time, repeating modules who suck rocks. One guy who is obviously not at the deep end of the talent pool does not a generalization make.
Heck, I've dealt with scads of GMs who think themselves the best thing since sliced bread, and some purely GM, never play. They still suck.
The fact is some people suck.
Let's look at the game store I play at most. They reward judges with free snacks (they have chips, soda, and candy). Do you think they should discontinue the program because it encourages people to judge for free snacks?
Let's consider the implications of the argument against further rewards- this is the idea that people who judge on the basis of said rewards will tend to be bad(of course not all). Hence we will attract more bad judges. OK, then why don't you petition to get rid of the current rewards? I mean surely that will deter all the bad judges right?
I judge modules for the credit, and generally don't go to the trouble to do it without it. It takes me time and expense to judge, and I'm not that interested in doing it without some gain. Yes, I don't mind judging, but I have a home game for that and I have more freedom there to both adjust the rules as I like and select the players I want to deal with(an eight person table, and I could add more if I wanted, but it's already tough to run). If I'm going to have to judge a table when there's a solid chance I will end up with one of the problem children (adults, but the label is correct), I will require some incentive.
Oh, and I'm generally regarded as a good judge (not just in my own mind, I've gotten rewarded for it at cons by anonymous table rating).
|
Under such a scheme, would I be able to get multiple characters up to Level 12 via GM credit simply by running the same three or four scenarios over and over again?
Not trying to be snarky; just trying to understand the potential benefits/consequences.
You would need to develop a large pool of players in order to do so.
A win/win for Paizo and the DM.
Yep, you're a juicy, golden apple!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Another Anecdote. I've not repeated a scenario GMing yet (unless you count those you can re-run, like First Steps). I like to think I'm a good GM (I've the certificate to provde it). I'm currently shopping scenarios and modules for GM credit to get Talyn to 12th in time for Origins.
None of the above make me a good GM, nor do they make me a bad GM. Come to the table and play.
Now I will likely, post Origins run repeat scenarios. If we get enough players I'll run The Devil We Know again in a heart beat. It's set in my favourite nation (Taldor) and puts the party up against a classic Pathfinder foe. It's on the top of my 'wish we could see upgraded' list, as well as needing a part 5. Right now though, I've a good chunk of the season 1 and 0 scenarios, some of which I've never run.