|
Aside from the supposition that a GM isn't any good unless they're a martyr, why do we care about their motivation?
Grizzled, selfless veteran GM: Are you all prepped and ready to go?
Newbie GM: I sure am. Nervous, though. You know, I'm not sure my character would survive this. Glad he'll be getting his credit from the sidelines. Plus he'll level up, which will be nice so I can finally start doing those 5-9s.
Grizzled, selfless veteran GM (barely concealing his disgust): You clearly aren't cut out for this. Give me that scenario, go home, and think about why you're even here. This is for the good of the community.AND THE COMMUNITY GROWS
Maybe the reason many of us find it hard to get GMs is because they're held to an impossibly high standard, while players are treated like delicate flowers who must be catered to lest they threaten to leave the campaign.
+1
Judging by the fact we have at least 12 regular PFS gms in the area, and maybe only 1 person who could be seen as a martyr, I guess we're either doing really well as we have a lot of GMs or really poorly as their motivations could be suspect.
We clearly should ask more about their motivations so that we can purge the chaff as just figuring out whether players are having a good time at their table no longer seems relevant. FYI, I've only heard complaints about 1 regular GM in the area.
|
|
If I've offended, I apologize.
If I'm misrepresenting, I'd love a clarification. Because what I'm seeing is this:
And I disagree with all three premises.
I also see elsewhere a lot of discussion of what is expected of a GM, but practically nothing about what is expected from a player beyond following the printed rules. And a bad player can be just as poisonous to a gaming community as a bad GM.
I realize there's some history that I'm not privy to as I only started playing Pathfinder a year and a half ago. I also don't see how that is relevant for what is good for the campaign now, but I'm open to correction.
|
Aside from the supposition that a GM isn't any good unless they're a martyr, why do we care about their motivation?
Because in my experience attitude is contagious. If you have a significant amount of players that won't GM even if it means players have to go home because there are no GMs other people start getting the same attitude. Now if you have larger amount of player that have an attitude that is congenial to a sense of community that attitude spreads to the other players.
If a person cares about his fellow gamer that encourages growth more than the opposite.
Now like I said, GMing is not the only way to do this but it can be a critical portion.
Community/Work environment 101.
|
|
If I've offended, I apologize.
If I'm misrepresenting, I'd love a clarification. Because what I'm seeing is this:
I think it is more Like this at least for me. And these are just for regular Game days, I have a totally different opinion when it comes to conventions or one of large events.
Offering GM Credit would attract GMs that are only doing it for credit, not only attract GMs who are doing it for credit. In other words, for those that would GM even without the extra credit it is a nicety not a necessity. I am all for niceties, I Just don’t want one that can encourage things that can hurt a community.
Closer to people who wouldn't GM if there were no credit to be gained are not as helpful in growing PFS due not being helpful to a growing a gaming community if that attitude was the majority. If a majority is refusing to GM because they are not getting anything out of it then that attitude will spread which will kill the growth off the gaming community.
You can be a great GM, but if your lack of willingness to GM because you don't get anything out of it is stopping an area from growing, you are not an as helpful GM.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
If I have to step in as a last-minute GM to avoid sending players home I'm going to want to run a scenario I've already run before. For one thing, I've already prepped it, so I'll do a better job than running a scenario cold. But it also gives me a chance to do it a little better - I generally feel there's something I could do to improve how I run.
In fact I'm just about to hop in my car and drive an hour (or more, depending on traffic) to run at a not-so-local game store where they are short of a GM tonight. I'm running "Sewer Dragons" for the second time. And in a few weeks time I'll be running it again at a local convention (and running Thornkeep: The Accursed Halls, which I've already run at our local game store).
About the only thing I try not to do is run a scenario that I've never played; I much prefer to not know what's around the corner. Fortunately I live in an area where there are quite a few stores within an hour or so's drive, so I can usually find a seat at a table to play a scenario if I'm likely to be running it myself locally. In fact that's why I'm heading off to judge tonight; it's payback for a few weeks ago when I got to run Blakros Matrimony at that store (and Day of the Demon the week before ...). We're running a story arc in June (Storming the Diamond Gate/Blakros Matrimony/The Disappeared/The Fortress of the Nail), and nobody had played Blakros Matrimony - I had intended to play it at an earlier convention, but had to change my plans. We've even got a tentative promise from our local VC to come and run Day of the Demon for us to round out the storyline!
|
|
Offering GM Credit would attract GMs that are only doing it for credit, not only attract GMs who are doing it for credit. In other words, for those that would GM even without the extra credit it is a nicety not a necessity. I am all for niceties, I Just don’t want one that can encourage things that can hurt a community.
So enacting this proposed policy would attract both good GMs, which would presumably be good for the community, but also attract bad GMs, whose selfish attitude would spread and poison the community.
Closer to people who wouldn't GM if there were no credit to be gained are not as helpful in growing PFS due not being helpful to a growing a gaming community if that attitude was the majority. If a majority is refusing to GM because they are not getting anything out of it then that attitude will spread which will kill the growth off the gaming community.
So the people who only GM if they can get credit are bad because that attitude spreads, and then the majority of people will only GM if they can get credit. Which in a world where everyone gets credit for GMing...would not be a problem.
You can be a great GM, but if your lack of willingness to GM because you don't get anything out of it is stopping an area from growing, you are not an as helpful GM.
It really comes down to this. You think that someone who is unwilling to GM without something in return is fundamentally bad for the gaming community. I don't. So we're probably not going to agree on this subject.
---
I've stepped on enough toes already here, so I'm also going to bow out of this conversation, but I'll ask this:
Let's say that, hypothetically, a group of players showed up to their FLGS and the GM sheepishly explained to them that he forgot the chronicle sheets, and that because of some (hypothetical) rule, they could not get them later, and that they also wouldn't be able run the scenario again for credit because they would have already played it (I know it doesn't work this way).
Would you begrudge the players if they politely declined and left, promising to come back next week if they'd be able to play for credit then?
|
|
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.
I definetly see your point on this. People that Dm like this do not keep people comign to their tables. IF it is the only game they have and they still go to this table. Well then that method is drviing games that there would be none.
Me personally I do not like DMing public games, because some of the public people bother me. Although I still GM them. I spend a considerable amount of time and effort on doing a good job even though I do not enjoy it or want to do it. I was raised "if you are going to do something do it right".
The people that prefer DMing are rarer, and I think anythign to get more Dms is a good thing.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I definetly see your point on this. People that Dm like this do not keep people comign to their tables. IF it is the only game they have and they still go to this table. Well then that method is drviing games that there would be none.
Speaking as someone who has a wide number of scenarios, plans to run as many of them as possible before repeating, takes time to prepare them, and (if I may toot my own horn) have people who 'keep coming to my tables', I'd ask you not to generalize.
(I'm not offended, just saying to watch the wide brush)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have lost count of how many times I have ran Silent Tide and the Before the Dawn Series.
I love them. I don't mind running them and if you got the chonicle sheets I can pretty much run it from memory. I am at my best at those tables and players have lots of fun.
I don't earn a drop of credit and I don't mind a bit as I am there too have fun as well and enjoy myself with friends.
Paul, as a VC, you get other incentives to run and organize for PFS.
Me? I run PFS because it seems, sometimes, like if I didn't, no one in my area would. Other than at the monthly Game Day.
Maybe it is just a problem that I am not receiving any announcement emails frmo my local VOs for other local games. Maybe, is it sometimes seems, there are no other local games.
In either case, it has seemed to me, for quite some time, and several VCs, that if I am not running PFS, no one is.
I would not mind getting an incentive to re-run scenarios. I have done so, but that was at local player request.
On my own, I would like to earn more than just a table toward my next star for GMing, yet again, scenario X.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is my personal take on this issue.
First a bit about me. I consider myself to be an excellent GM. I am proud of this.
Here are some reasons that I think I am a good GM:
I do all of these things when I GM in my home game, and I do all of them to the exact same extent when I GM at PFS events.
Why am I telling you this?
Because I only GM at PFS events for the credit. If there was no credit, I wouldn't volunteer. If there was more credit, I would volunteer more.
I come to PFS events because I want to play, not because I want to GM. Now I am hearing in this thread that I am not good for the community and that I shouldn't be GMing at all. It certainly is possible that other GMs reading this will feel the same way. Ironically, this makes me want to GM less. I certainly don't feel like part of the community at the moment.
|
|
Correct me if I am wrong but you can get repeat credit for any level one or low tier scenario or module as both a player and a GM correct?
Sorry Quindo, that is not correct.
You only get repeat credit (player and GM) for Tier 1 Scenarios and Tier 1-2 Modules.
A Tier 1-5 (or 1-7) Scenario is NOT a Tier 1 Scenario. And a Level 2 Module, which is Tier 1-3, is not a Tier 1-2 Module. Only level 1 Modules are Tier 1-2.
Some people confuse playing a level 1 character in sub-tier 1-2 of a Tier 1-5 (or 1-7) Scenario with playing a level 1 character in a Scenario that only allows level 1 characters or a Module that only allows level 1 and 2 characters. It is not the same.
Once you understand the difference between Tier and sub-tier, it makes sense.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I still shake my head a bit at the insistence for GM credit.
But perhaps it's just me. I've been running convention games off and on, heck, even a couple of conventions, over the past 12 years or so BEFORE Pathfinder existed, none of it for any sort of play credit.
Either GM because you want to, or don't GM.
-j
I still shake my head at the insistance that people who want credit for running multiple times don't want to GM.
Then I realize that some people are just idiots, and move on.
"Either GM because you want to, or don't GM."
Does this statement say all "people who want credit for running multiple times don't want to GM."?
No.
Just that IF you are GMing ONLY because you get credits, you really need to not be GMing.
Over and over I see "I have no incentive to GM the same event". THAT attitude is what I am addressing.
Getting credits is great. Insisting on getting "paid" to GM is not.
And thank you for chucking insults. Real classy.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
You started the insults Jason, by 'shaking your head' at people you know nothing about.
Then you double down by confirming that people who GM to get credit should *not* be GMing. Thank you oh mighty rules of all, who decides who should and should not be GMing.
I GM because I enjoy it. I like running scenarios I havne't run before *because* I get credit
But then again, I realize that some people reafirm they're idiots, and move on.
I assume you have all first level characters with no chronicle sheets? After all, using your standard, if you're accepting the sheets you're 'playing for credit' and clearly you feel you shouldn't be playing in that case?
No. I attacked an attitude. I attacked comments made. I did NOT attack people.
Perhaps I'm a little old fashioned. I was taught 'attack the subject, not the speaker'. I don't know you. I don't know how smart you are, your background, or anything but what you say (or type, as the case may be). Therefore I don't assume.
I clarified my position. I suppose I cannot control if someone insists on seeing what they want to see instead of what's there, but I'll clarify it again. I have no issue with GMs getting side benefits from volunteering to GM. But the moment the benefits become the primary reason they are GMing, that attitude I cannot stand.
My attitude as a GM and convention coordinator is and has always been, "the player experience comes first. Everything else is secondary."
As a player? I started convention gaming before there were living campaigns. You sat down, got a pregen charater, and roleplayed for a few hours. You left with no credit. Even now, I will often sit down to PFS events I've already played to fill tables or more often because I enjoy the company.
Do I like the credit? Sure. But GMing or playing, it's secondary to the actual play.
-j
|
|
You know how people always say that when trying to determine your career, you should find a job that you'd do even if you weren't paid?
You still want to get paid.
I really don't understand this attitude that renumeration somehow tarnishes the sanctity of being a GM. You really think GM credit cheapens the game? Get rid of it entirely. Let me know how many of the "right" kind of GMs that attracts.
You want the community to grow? Get more GMs.
You want more GMs? Incentivize people to GM.
You want people to GM for the reasons you want? Too bad. You don't get to dictate someone else's motivations.
It may be hard to believe, but some of us mercenaries are actually halfway decent GMs.
BTW
I'm sorry if I'm being a bit prickly, but the implication--no, the outright statement--that some of you are "doing it right" and some of us are "doing it wrong" is coming off as more than a little sanctimonious and condescending.
|
|
You know how people always say that when trying to determine your career, you should find a job that you'd do even if you weren't paid?
You still want to get paid.
Seriously. I can't get over the idea that rewarding people for doing something somehow cheapens it. Yes, volunteerism is this lovely pure ideal, but the simple fact is that we need more GMs--at least in our region--and our current GMs wouldn't hate this either.
Plus, for reals, if you don't want the credit, just don't take it!
|
|
I would like to see who among us is the most virtuous of GMs, the least selfish. I propose a contest. I think Dragnmoon or Jason will probably win, but others have a fair shot. I will do my best.
From now until Gen Con, whoever GMs the most scenarios with NO credit wins. Credit includes chronicle sheets, convention passes, gift certificates, products, anything. Taking credit for any scenario immediately ends your qualification in the contest. Are you guys ready to prove to all of us the purity of your love for this hobby?
|
|
If no character can have more than one Chronicle Sheet from the same scenario/module/what-have-you, would it truly do any harm to Pathfinder Society Organized Play as a game if both GMs and players alike received a Chronicle Sheet every time they played or GMed?
That's a false equivalence. Playing the same scenario again means knowing what's coming and (hopefully) fighting the urge to meta-game. GMing the same scenario again means better knowing the scenario and likely providing a better experience for the players.
I would like to see who among us is the most virtuous of GMs, the least selfish. I propose a contest. I think Dragnmoon or Jason will probably win, but others have a fair shot. I will do my best.
I'd rather not diminish anyone else's contributions. Dragnmoon's a 4-star GM. That means he's probably run more games for no credit than I've played and GM'd combined. I don't see Jason's statistics, but I take him at his word that he runs a lot of games. I think they're genuinely supportive of the community. I just disagree with them on this issue.
|
|
That's a false equivalence. Playing the same scenario again means knowing what's coming and (hopefully) fighting the urge to meta-game.
What about those who play the scenario after GMing it?
And if a GM is concerned about a repeat player meta-gaming and spoiling a scenario, PFS already has something in place to handle this.If you have already played a scenario and wish to replay it for any reason, you must inform the GM that you have already played the scenario. Some GMs may not be comfortable running an adventure for players who have foreknowledge of what is to come. If your GM is not comfortable with you replaying a scenario, you must find another GM who is. GMs have the right to deny players the opportunity to replay a scenario for any reason, but all GMs are encouraged to be as flexible as possible when replay is the only option that allows them to seat the minimum legal number of players at a game table.
If you spoil the plot for the table, the GM has the right to ask you to leave the table and is under no obligation to award you a Chronicle sheet. Be very careful about character knowledge versus player knowledge. If you’re concerned about possibly spoiling something during the course of play, take the GM aside and ask how she would like it handled. Remember: the goal of replay is to make sure fun gaming happens, not to remove the fun from gaming.
|
|
What about those who play the scenario after GMing it?
I believe that's why they originally wouldn't let you get credit for a scenario if you'd already run it as a GM.
The difference is that running the same scenario multiple times will generally lead to a better experience for everyone involved. Running the same scenario as a player means that at least one party member can no longer contribute to decision making and puzzle solving. They basically function like a pregen for a 3-player party only a player is running it instead of the GM.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
That's a false equivalence. Playing the same scenario again means knowing what's coming and (hopefully) fighting the urge to meta-game.What about those who play the scenario after GMing it?
And if a GM is concerned about a repeat player meta-gaming and spoiling a scenario, PFS already has something in place to handle this.
If you have already played a scenario and wish to replay it for any reason, you must inform the GM that you have already played the scenario. Some GMs may not be comfortable running an adventure for players who have foreknowledge of what is to come. If your GM is not comfortable with you replaying a scenario, you must find another GM who is. GMs have the right to deny players the opportunity to replay a scenario for any reason, but all GMs are encouraged to be as flexible as possible when replay is the only option that allows them to seat the minimum legal number of players at a game table.
If you spoil the plot for the table, the GM has the right to ask you to leave the table and is under no obligation to award you a Chronicle sheet. Be very careful about character knowledge versus player knowledge. If you’re concerned about possibly spoiling something during the course of play, take the GM aside and ask how she would like it handled. Remember: the goal of replay is to make sure fun gaming happens, not to remove the fun from gaming.
I think that one difference here is that the GM has generally paid for the scenario that they are GMming, while the player has not. Therefore, the GM should reasonably be able to expect to get more than one use out of it.
There's also the fact that we DO want to encourage people to play different things, since player variety is a good thing. GM variety is of lesser importance.
|
|
Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not advocating the position that players should receive Chronicle sheets for replaying a scenario. I am sincerely curious, though, as to what actual harm allowing such a thing would cause the game.
When I sit down at a table, whether it be to GM or play, I have no idea if any of the players have GMed the scenario previously and may have meta-knowledge of it. It's even possible that a player may have read through the spoilers in the GM Forum or purchased and read through the scenario for whatever reason.
What I'm trying to understand is what harm, if any, is caused the game should a player receive credit for a replay when there are so many un-policed ways already for a player to have meta-knowledge of a scenario when they sit down to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are folks actually reading what I said, or just seeing one line out of my posts and ignoring the rest?
For the third time now: I have no issue with GMs getting credit. Hell, as a con coordinator I gave GMs benefits like books and discounts as a thank you for volunteering.
However, several people in this thread alone have made comments like "without credit I have no incentive to run games again". The attitude I have an issue with is people making the credit their primary reason for GMing, rather than GMing because they want to provide players a good time.
My concern is, "where is your focus"? I have had GMs that were pretty clearly there only because I was providing room and free convention entry, not because they were really wanting to GM. And it showed in the quality of their GMing, resulting in unhappy players. I ended up telling these 'volunteers', thanks but no thanks, I'll find someone else.
GMs getting credit? Great, wonderful. GMs making it their primary focus? Not so much.
-j
|
|
My concern is, "where is your focus"? I have had GMs that were pretty clearly there only because I was providing room and free convention entry, not because they were really wanting to GM. And it showed in the quality of their GMing, resulting in unhappy players. I ended up telling these 'volunteers', thanks but no thanks, I'll find someone else.
And your concern with the proposal of multiple GM credits per scenario is that it will attract more of these undesirable GMs?
If so, do you concede that it will also attract GMs who don't require credit, but would like to receive it?
And if so, isn't having so many GMs that you have to turn some away a good problem to have?
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not advocating the position that players should receive Chronicle sheets for replaying a scenario. I am sincerely curious, though, as to what actual harm allowing such a thing would cause the game.
When I sit down at a table, whether it be to GM or play, I have no idea if any of the players have GMed the scenario previously and may have meta-knowledge of it. It's even possible that a player may have read through the spoilers in the GM Forum or purchased and read through the scenario for whatever reason.
What I'm trying to understand is what harm, if any, is caused the game should a player receive credit for a replay when there are so many un-policed ways already for a player to have meta-knowledge of a scenario when they sit down to play.
For your first comment,
This thread and this thread, and this thread have plenty to say about it. In the interest of full disclosure, I sent you to my post in the second thread, which is from the perspective of a coordinator for LFR.Regarding your second comment, cheating happens. There is no way to stop it. But allowing replay will make that NOT cheating, and will spread the meta-knowledge around like candy. Again, I saw this a lot in LFR.
So, for you third comment, part of the "policing" is simply the guilt associated with doing it. If replay is allowed, that guilt becomes removed. Another part of the policing is that people have to actually spend money to buy the scenario. As a coordinator, I can assure you that people HATE spending money on stuff like this; even the GMs whine about it. If a player is going to, I will refer you back to the "cheating happens" comment.
Also, a player who has GM'd the scenario is required to inform the table that he has played it. If he doesn't, well, he's cheating. Unless he plans on just sitting there silently and doing whatever people tell him to do, I suppose.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Like I already said earlier, you guys have convinced me. I won't GM for PFS anymore. I have a home game where I GM. I joined the local PFS group because I wanted to play too.
I am a good GM, and our local group desperately needs GMs. Our coordinator, bless him, runs a table every week; I am sure he would love to play. Only a couple other guys have stepped up to GM, myself included. But I did so because of the credit.
So...I am going to go back to only playing. This way, I won't be polluting the saintly virtue of the position with my selfishness.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
People are just riled up, Fox. Let it die down and they'll get back to being civil.
I think, if they were to really think about it, they get credit, too. If nothing else in the form of accolades from fellow players. We all like to feel appreciated, and I seriously doubt that anyone would still be doing it if no one appreciated the fact that they were.
|
|
I'm by far not the best GM out there. I don't do the extra role play stuff some GM's are known for. How ever there are a lot of people on this board that think because of this I should not GM. There is a fundamental problem with that attitude. You will get no new GM's to start learning how to GM. It is a very long process in learning to adjudicate the rules on the fly with out slowing down the game looking things up all the time. The I have no problems with how they give out credit now. I how ever can see the point he is trying to make. As a GM we spend owner own money, and time to make the games happen. Some of us don't make a lot of money to begin with. So spending what little extra spending cash we have on scenarios, maps, and miniatures. One might think that after spending all the money, and time. Only getting credit for running each scenario a bit on the expensive side. When you can play with spending no money, or investing extra time to prepare.
Do I see Paizo changing there ruling on this? No
How ever if they did not give GM credits for running it the first time. I would have no interest in running any games for PFSP. As I would get 0 return on my investment of time, and money. As it is I dislike running scenarios more then one time. Have I done it yes. Will I do it again more then likely. The problem is with getting nothing in return it makes it really hard for me to want to. As it's over $20 in gas for me to get there and back. As I have stated I don't make much to begin with. So that money could be spent on something else with a return on my investment.