Request for a generic GM credit chronicle


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

redward wrote:

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Had a response and then decided she just doesn't care anymore ... people are going to think and make up stuff as they want... leaves thread... begins break from gaming

4/5

Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:
Had a response and then decided she just doesn't care anymore ... people are going to think and make up stuff as they want... leaves thread... begins break from gaming

If I've offended, I apologize.

If I'm misrepresenting, I'd love a clarification. Because what I'm seeing is this:

Offering additional GM credit would only attract GMs who are doing it for additional credit.

People who GM for credit (or at least people who wouldn't GM if there were no credit to be gained) are doing it for the wrong reasons.

People who GM for the wrong reasons are not good GMs.

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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

redward wrote:
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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

redward wrote:

If I've offended, I apologize.

If I'm misrepresenting, I'd love a clarification. Because what I'm seeing is this:

Offering additional GM credit would only attract GMs who are doing it for additional credit.

People who GM for credit (or at least people who wouldn't GM if there were no credit to be gained) are doing it for the wrong reasons.

People who GM for the wrong reasons are not good GMs.

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.

redward wrote:
Offering additional GM credit would only attract GMs who are doing it for additional credit.

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.

redward wrote:
People who GM for credit (or at least people who wouldn't GM if there were no credit to be gained) are doing it for the wrong reasons.

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.

redward wrote:
People who GM for the wrong reasons are not good GMs.

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.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West aka JohnF

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!

4/5

Dragnmoon wrote:
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.

Dragnmoon wrote:
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.

Dragnmoon wrote:
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?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
redward wrote:
Dragnmoon wrote:
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.

Dragnmoon wrote:
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.

Dragnmoon wrote:
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.

Actually, I think Dragnmoon is saying something I agree with on a fundamental level: The set of people who will not GM without for-character incentives includes a set of people who will be harmful to the community by virtue of their attitude about GMing. That set overlaps the set of people who will GM without (more) for-character incentives than those already in place in the campaign. He wants to find ways to incentivise the disjoint set of {people who will gm with additional incentive} without increasing the size of the intersection of {people who are gming} {people whose attitude harms the community} relative to {people who are gming}.

I agree that those sets are not null sets. I share his concern that a blanket increase in incentive may shift the ratio in a harmful direction.

Clearer? Accurate expansion, Dragnmoon?


Purple Fluffy CatBunnyGnome wrote:


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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

That is pretty accurate TetsujinOni.

Venture-Captain, Germany–Hannover aka Hayato Ken

So seems like season 5 rules gonna impact that too with no rewards playing up.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Alaska—Anchorage aka Dragnmoon

Hayato Ken wrote:
So seems like season 5 rules gonna impact that too with no rewards playing up.

Since GM credit is based on the level of the character you put the credit on and not the sub-tier you run the game in, it will have zero impact on GM credit.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dragonmoon, I understand what you are saying completely, but I think you need to re-evaluate some of your positions.

First of all, despite your claim, no one has posted a single bit of negative experience from a system that allows multiple GM credit for running the same scenario multiple times. There have been some fears and speculation posted about how it might attract more GM who are in it for the wrong reason. But that is a very different thing from actual experience with the proposed system not working.

I agree that having more GMs that are invested in the success and growth of the campaign is a good thing. But since you have yet to propose a system to encourage this behavior, I am going to assume that you share my opinion that there really is no possibly way to encourage a good nature and kind heart in GMs through campaign rules.

You also have seem people on this thread react very negatively to the comments you have been making. While I am convinced that you had no malice intented when you posted you thoughts, you need to be aware that the attitudes you have posted about which kind of GMs we should be encouraging is incredibly elitist. That is why some people reacting negatively to them. You also need to be aware that an elitist attitude can have a hugely negative effect on the growth of a PFS group. If I was someone who occationally volunteered to GM in your area, and I read your posts in this thread, I would probably start looking for another area to voluteer in where my intentions and motives for GMing aren't being held up to such a microscope. You were correct to add a later post incase your players read the thread because them getting offended by what you said is a real possibility. I am not intending this as a personal attack against you, but I truely think that it is something you have not considered enough in this discussion, and that your imput to this discussion is valueable.

You have posted you troubles organizing GMs for your area. These are very, very common problems in PFS. For those who are saying we have a perfect balance right now, my response is that statement is completely untrue. There are not enough PFS GMs right now, and that problem is the largest barrier to growth of the community. We desperately need more people volunteering to GM, for any reason, even if they aren't the greatest GM. The absolute worst experience a player can have is to show up at a PFS event and not be able to play. And the only way that a not so great GM becomes a better GM is by GMing more. And GMing the same scenario more than once is a great way to improve your skills as a GM.

In the current system, if someone is setting up at the last minute to help out to GM at an event that needs more judges, there is an incentive for them to run a scenario they have little to no experience with. and a disincentive to run a scenario they have experience running before. This current system encourages the kind of behavior you are citing as a problem. The proposed change would remove that incentive that likely is going to result in a worst experience for the players involved. It gives something back the GMs that meet all your exacting criteria about wanting to grow the community out of the goodness of their own heart, who are running a scenario multiple times already. And it removes a disincentive for more people to do the same thing.

When your area is heavily saturated with people who will GM, then you have the luxury of being able to pick the best of them. But when your area is starving for GMs, you do not have that luxury. The last thing you want to be doing is discouraging people from GMing because they are doing it for the "wrong reasons". All that will accomplish is make the problem worse.

John

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Finlanderboy wrote:

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)

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Maryland— Baltimore aka Qstor

Doug Miles wrote:
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.

I agree with Doug.

Mike

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵

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.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville aka thaX

I feel the same way about Black Waters...

"See. I ToOOoolld yew!! She is alive!!! I told ye she was alive." Sits down in the circle. "And then what happened?"

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Nevada—Las Vegas aka kinevon

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Rees wrote:

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.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Conjecture 1: A scenario is more enjoyable for the players and GMs the second and subsequent time its run by that GM.
Conjecture 2: There exists a number of GMs who refuse to (or are at least resistant to) GMing a scenario multiple times.
Conjecture 3: If the GMs referred to above would receive credit for running a scenario a second time, they would be willing to run it again.

It seems that we can conclude that the current system discourages some GMs from running a scenario that would be more enjoyable for the players.

Perhaps allowing an additional credit for the second (or maybe just the third) time a GM runs a scenario would help with this situation.

Silver Crusade

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 have been GMing for a long time (not quite 30 years).
  • I have been playing pathfinder since the alpha; I know the rules extremely well.
  • I am fair and impartial; I am not adversarial with the players; I don't try to make the PCs win, nor do I try to make them lose (I roll dice in the open). But I always silently root for them, and loudly cheer them when they make it out of dire situations, and heartily congratulate them during their moments of epic win.
  • I am animated, and excited when running a game; I try to use as many distinct voices and mannerisms as possible while GMing (I'm actually better at role playing when GMing than when playing, and I'm working on figuring out why that is).
  • I put a lot of prep work into GMing. I read the scenario twice, look up all of the monsters and their abilities to refresh my memory on things I haven't seen in a while, and learn things I have never seen before. I draw as many of the maps as possible beforehand (and I am quite good at drawing with wet erase markers, using a watercolor style with them). I sometimes build 3D set pieces. And I often create props or handouts for the players.

    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.

  • Grand Lodge

    Quindo wrote:
    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.

    Liberty's Edge 5/5 Venture-Agent, United Kingdom—England—Chester aka Paz

    Maybe if there were some rewards offered to GMs dependent on the number of stars they'd achieved, people would be more willing to GM without receiving a chronicle sheet from the adventure?

    Personally, I GM PFS so I can beat CheshireElf to 3 stars... ;-)


    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

    Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

    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.


    Matthew Morris wrote:

    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.

    Sovereign Court 5/5 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


    I miss the good old days when we played(GM'ed) because it was fun.

    4/5

    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.


    redward wrote:

    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!

    Silver Crusade

    Jason Wu wrote:

    Either GM because you want to, or don't GM.

    ...
    IF you are GMing ONLY because you get credits, you really need to not be GMing.

    You have convinced me, Jason. I won't GM for PFS any more.

    4/5

    Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

    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?

    Silver Crusade

    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?

    4/5

    graypark wrote:
    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.

    The Fox wrote:
    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.

    Silver Crusade

    You are right Redward, I was being snarky. I apologize.

    4/5

    Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
    redward wrote:
    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.
    The Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play wrote:

    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.

    4/5

    graypark wrote:
    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.

    Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, West Virginia—Charleston aka Netopalis

    graypark wrote:
    redward wrote:
    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.
    The Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play wrote:

    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.

    4/5

    Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

    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

    4/5

    Jason Wu wrote:
    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?

    Dark Archive

    Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
    redward wrote:
    Jason Wu wrote:
    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?

    His, Dragnmoon, and mine, at least, is how I read this thread.

    Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

    graypark wrote:

    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.

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    I've gmed for several network campaigns before PFS,including Living Greyhawk, Living City, and Living Arcanis. And for the most part we got bupkis rewards for doing so... save for the pleasure of GMing itself. I've appreciate the already generous rewards that Paizo gives us presently, but I still GM for no credit those modules that I run multiple times.

    If you won't step up to the plate for GMing unless you're going to be bribed for each and every time you do so, then quite frankly, you don't belong in this campaign, and for that matter no other network campaigns that I can think of, as a GM, because you're doing it for the wrong reasons, and with the wrong attitude.

    Silver Crusade

    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.

    Sovereign Court 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.

    Grand Lodge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    redward wrote:
    Jason Wu wrote:
    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?

    The thing is... GM's DO receive credit, on a one time basis per scenario, which is 100 percent more than any other network campaign ever did. Despite this, those campaigns who gave out no rewards, also managed to get a good number of people who stepped up to the plate.

    We're not doing ourselves any favors by attracting a larger number of GM's if the deal breaker was getting bribed more than they already are.

    Silver Crusade

    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.

    101 to 150 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Request for a generic GM credit chronicle All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.