Request for a generic GM credit chronicle


Pathfinder Society

151 to 200 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

The Fox wrote:

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.

I will ask a very simple question.

Do you GM primarily to get the GM chronicle sheet?

Or do you GM primarily because you want to help, with the chronicle being a nice bonus?

Because if it's the latter, then I, and LazarX, weren't talking to you at all.

For the fourth time, I have no problem with GMs being awarded benefits or rewards for volunteering.

Just when they make getting those rewards their primary reason for GMing.

I honestly don't know why that is so hard to grasp.

-j

Silver Crusade

I GM primarily to get the chronicle sheet. (So I guess that means that you were talking to me?)

I thought that it was a nice bonus for my local group that they get a very good GM to run a table for them. But for me, it is all about the chronicle sheet.

Since my desire is to play, and that is the entire reason that I started playing in PFS, I see now that I should just do that instead. I will get the chronicle sheet that I want, AND I will get to play my character, AND my group won't be subject to my selfishness anymore.

Everyone wins!

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16, Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I tend to run a few specific scenarios (it's easy to figure out which) over and over, but I just can't get excited about this idea. I've gotten to the point where most of the time I don't even bother with GM chronicles, particularly for characters past 5th level. Of course I enjoy playing my characters a lot too and I'd rather not run out the clock on my favorites without even playing them.

And Doug's right. Running a scenario multiple times really is like running downhill. You spend less time worried about the rules and more time having fun and making sure the players are having fun. The NPCs come more alive, the combats are snappier, and the game prep is vastly simpler (for me its just a matter of making sure I have the right minis and maps).

I would far rather GM a scenario I'm familiar with for no credit (or only the stars) than deal with all the prep for a new one.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

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

You mean when a small group of friends with lots of free time played a relatively simple game? I remember those days fondly. :-)

What we're talking about here is encouraging people with limited free time (due to work, family, life etc) to spend it travelling long distance to run complex games for groups of complete strangers. Its not quite the same thing. Some people do that because they enjoy it (and all power to them), whereas others need a little encouragement to go that extra mile. It had never occurred to me that people in the latter category would be told to quit because they weren't wanted. I sometimes think these messageboards do more harm than good.


My concern is and will always be the quality of experience for the players. I have encountered far too many so called volunteer GMs that aren't really intetested in GMing, but signed up because they were getting benefits like free entry, or room space, or free loot, or whatever. And the attitude would show in the game, they'd be more or less punching a clock waiting for the slot to end rather than being active and engaged with the players.

That is what I worry about.

I don't have any concerns about GM rewards beyond that. If we can have the awards without compromising the play, I'd be all for it.

-j


Jason Wu wrote:

My concern is and will always be the quality of experience for the players. I have encountered far too many so called volunteer GMs that aren't really intetested in GMing, but signed up because they were getting benefits like free entry, or room space, or free loot, or whatever. And the attitude would show in the game, they'd be more or less punching a clock waiting for the slot to end rather than being active and engaged with the players.

That is what I worry about.

I don't have any concerns about GM rewards beyond that. If we can have the awards without compromising the play, I'd be all for it.

-j

I've had similar experiences with Gms who believed it was their turn to gm. I also had a "martyr" Gm I see every year at major cons fall asleep for about 30 minutes at a table at a major con. He was not very pleasant, so we let him sleep.

Rewards, just like social pressure, encourage people to Gm. They do nothing to improve the qualities of those GMs. The only way people improve as GMs is experience, and that is hard earned.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Drogon wrote:
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.

Drogon, my sincere thanks for taking the time to link me to those threads. You've answered all my questions and by helping me understand the potential consequences of allowing unlimited player credit, I've been able to formulate a more educated opinion regarding the allowance of unlimited GM credit. Thanks again.


People have to have a desire to do a good job as well. Although I admit I DM for my local group is out of obligation and the chronicle. if both of those were not there I would not DM.

Although I have a desire to do a good job, because if you are going to do something do it well.

Grand Lodge

Folks, if you have an issue with an inappropriate comment, please don't quote it and respond in kind. Flag the post (so Paizo can deal with it) and move on. Thank you.


Disagreeing with someone doesn't make their comment inappropriate.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think believing experienced gamers will prepare a scenario for a group of strangers as they believe it is an positive act of altruism is unrealistic.

Working in a soup kitchen is altruistic.
Building schools in developing nations is altruistic.
GMing in organised play doesn't really fit the bill.

We need balanced rewards for the players who put their characters away and agree to entertain, challenge and excite their fellow public play gamers (who they may not even know).

I'd like to see the reward of +2 prestige to any GM that runs a scenario 2 or more times. Obviously the prestige boost would cap out at the maximum possible prestige for a character.

eg: So my new level 3 (9 scenarios) is missing 4 prestige from their total prestige total. I run Frostfur Captives (which I have already received GM credit for) twice for my local PFS play and my level 3 receives +4 prestige to reach a maximum of 18 prestige. Further GMing of the scenario grants no such prestige to my character.

Grand Lodge

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
Disagreeing with someone doesn't make their comment inappropriate.

I never said it did.

I'm not talking about civil discussions with different viewpoints. But name calling, rude comments, personal jabs, etc. should be flagged if you are bothered by them. Posting a response to them only exacerbates the problem.


Don Walker wrote:
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
Disagreeing with someone doesn't make their comment inappropriate.

I never said it did.

I'm not talking about civil discussions with different viewpoints. But name calling, rude comments, personal jabs, etc. should be flagged if you are bothered by them. Posting a response to them only exacerbates the problem.

Inappropriate or not, it seems to be in line with many of the voices I'm seeing here: if you expect to be compensated* for being a GM, you are not welcome in PFS.

*what qualifies as compensation has been broadly interpreted here, and better defining it may improve the dialogue some. For Jason, it seems to be more about real-world rewards, like rooms or convention passes.

I personally don't think GMs should expect or demand real-world rewards (something with a $ value). But I do think it is reasonable to expect in-game rewards (like chronicle sheets).


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just because there are a few people on the message boards who think GMing should be a thankless task and that good GMs are only motivated by the desire to build community and any other impure motives negatively impact the quality of their GMing does not remotely mean PFS thinks that.

That said I'm really disappointed by the attitude that some posters have taken here, actively attacking those who claim they want rewards for GMs and telling them to get out. Sometimes we have to remember is that everybody is motivated by different things and that every play group is different, and just because somebody is doing things differently from the way you do things, doesn't mean they are doing them wrong.


Don Walker wrote:
I'm not talking about civil discussions with different viewpoints. But name calling, rude comments, personal jabs, etc. should be flagged if you are bothered by them. Posting a response to them only exacerbates the problem.

Sometimes personal jabs are part of human interaction. We can pretend they don't exist until the mods take them away, or we can politely point out to the jabber that they're wrong, and being a jerk besides. What I'm saying is, there is a range of incivility that doesn't necessarily mean auto-delete, and when that happens, we have the option of standing up for ourselves. Some of us prefer to exercise it.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A datum: last year, I GMed 120 tables, from Gen Con 2011 to Gen Con 2012. I had set "five-star GM by Gen-Con" as a goal, and I would not have been that active otherwise. That was an incentive system that worked for me.

Another datum: this year, I'll likely have logged another 100 tables by the end of Gen Con 2013. No additional star, non much in the way of GM certifications... mostly because of the friends I've met through PFS.

I wouldn't have gotten to this year, without last year.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post and replies quoting it. These kinds of comments are not helpful. Additionally, please flag and move on.


Not that we often get the chance.

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

graypark wrote:
Drogon wrote:
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.
Drogon, my sincere thanks for taking the time to link me to those threads. You've answered all my questions and by helping me understand the potential consequences of allowing unlimited player credit, I've been able to formulate a more educated opinion regarding the allowance of unlimited GM credit. Thanks again.

On the off-chance that it wasn't just the internet that is putting sarcasm into this reply from you, I want to make sure I was clear about something:

Those threads cover a lot of arguments for and against PLAYERS replaying scenarios. A couple of them are old, and one of them is very contentious. One is more recent and civil. I know even my own views have changed (slightly) since each of these threads first circulated; I am no longer as willing to call someone to the mat on their viewpoints, and instead patiently explain what I see in other organized play campaigns in my store.

However, you had asked what consequences there could be from players getting replay credit. I pointed you at those to answer that question.

None of them really cover what unlimited GMing credit would do to the game.

If, however, gaining multiple credits from GMing causes people to ask for replay credit as players, then you will see those arguments I pointed you toward come to the fore very quickly.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Drogon wrote:
On the off-chance that it wasn't just the internet that is putting sarcasm into this reply from you, I want to make sure I was clear about something:

It was the internet causing my reply to read as sarcasm; I was sincere.


Drogon wrote:
On the off-chance that it wasn't just the internet that is putting sarcasm into this reply from you, I want to make sure I was clear about something

My sarcasm detector is tuned pretty sensitively; I believe graypark was being sincere.

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

Thanks, guys. I figured, but like to double check. (-:


Drogon wrote:
Thanks, guys. I figured, but like to double check. (-:

Understandable, considering the tone of some of the posters here.

<- Like this guy.

Shadow Lodge RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pirate Rob wrote:
Sometimes we have to remember is that everybody is motivated by different things and that every play group is different, and just because somebody is doing things differently from the way you do things, doesn't mean they are doing them wrong.

This is why I favorite'd Rob's post, as its something often lost in translation online.

While I disagree with the idea of GM credit as an incentive, I love the enthusiasm for getting more good GMs gming more good games. That said, it's difficult to find the right balance of quality v. quantity. We want more GMs, but they all have to be "good" GMs. The current system, I think, has enough motivation to barely get enough GMs at events. Or so it seems -- I often hear the woes of organizing events on these boards, and rarely read about the game days overflowing with eager, prepared, and skilled GMs. Maybe if we can figure out what motivations people have to GM, we can exploit them...

So what motivations do people have to GM?

Like Chris M., I too was GMing hard to get my 150 tables for that 5th star. I broke 150 back in January, but am still GMing once or twice a week. Why? Because I want to participate in PFS, but I've almost run out of scenarios to play. GMing is about all I have left, aside from organizing (which my VL has taken care of locally). But that's a corner case. Not everyone has every night free for gaming.

While I'm asking questions, I also wonder what other kinds of incentives we could come up to get more people to GM, aside from that intangible, awesome, warm and fluffy feeling it gives us?

Maybe GM vanities? After 20 games one of your characters can have a special title, or get a unique vanity? Something not mechanically powerful, but unique enough to draw people into the role.

Anyway, my brainstorm is over. Your turn.

Liberty's Edge

Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Walter Sheppard wrote:
So what motivations do people have to GM?

To prove Yetis can't stop me!!!!

Liberty's Edge

In my area, folks aren't motivated by GM rewards like Chronicle sheets. Most don't think they know the rules well enough, or lack the confidence to try. Some could do it, but are unwilling to put in the work because they say they've done their part (in previous campaigns). If the workhorse GM isn't available to run a game, we just find something else to do. I see the organizer ask for volunteer GMs at the local gameday and everyone just looks the other way. Throwing a free Chronicle at people isn't going to fix this local situation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing we're considering locally is a "GM ride-along" day. New GMs can have the option of an experienced GM sitting next to them and helping them with any rules issues.

I did it once when I had prepped as a backup GM and found I wasn't needed. I instead played the scenario, but considered myself on-hand to answer any questions the GM might have. I thought it worked out pretty well.


Gil Desmou wrote:
In my area, folks aren't motivated by GM rewards like Chronicle sheets. Most don't think they know the rules well enough, or lack the confidence to try. Some could do it, but are unwilling to put in the work because they say they've done their part (in previous campaigns). If the workhorse GM isn't available to run a game, we just find something else to do. I see the organizer ask for volunteer GMs at the local gameday and everyone just looks the other way. Throwing a free Chronicle at people isn't going to fix this local situation.

That's not the same situation, though. Getting people enthused about rerunning isn't the same as getting them to run at all.

Edit: don't get me wrong, I feel your pain. But the issue at hand is turning casual GMs into "workhorse" GMs, rather than some overall fix. (I'd love to see a separate thread about that if you have any ideas, though.)

Edit #2: it occurs to me to ask if YOU are running, or looking the other way when asked. Because you said "we" don't play when the workhorse is busy. So if you yourself don't run, I think I see an easy solution to your GM shortage.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I've been playing 3.XX since 2000 and I STILL don't know all the rules.
New rules come out every second month!
You have to get to a place where you can trust the entire table to help rules adjudicate with you. If someone is cheating, the entire table can help to detect it.
You also have to be handy with the phrase 'How's THAT work?'
Then you end up learning something new.

Players who have never GMed need to know that they don't have to know everything.


KestlerGunner wrote:

I've been playing 3.XX since 2000 and I STILL don't know all the rules.

New rules come out every second month!
You have to get to a place where you can trust the entire table to help rules adjudicate with you. If someone is cheating, the entire table can help to detect it.
You also have to be handy with the phrase 'How's THAT work?'
Then you end up learning something new.

Players who have never GMed need to know that they don't have to know everything.

I swore to myself I wasn't going to post in this thread... however, that is the single best piece of advice I have ever seen given on this thread.. and it's one that I took to heart a long time ago.

I ran a game this weekend for a table of VO some/most of them 4 and 5 star GMs in their own right... it was also a 7 player table. Had it not been for them efficiently helping with rules decision we would still be there playing that game. GMs have to be willing and able to learn from the players as well as the players learning from the GM.

Shadow Lodge

I'm one of the ones who doesn't like GMing for no credit (ie. running a scenario a 2nd or 3rd or 4th time) - aside from that it takes away the opportunity for other GMs to "have a go" and get that credit, it is incredibly taxing to GM as often as I do it, and to do it for no credit would make me think twice about continuing to GM.

That's not to say that I'm a bad GM (though there are certainly better that I've had the privilege to play with) and it is an enormous mistake to think that every (or even most) GMs out there that GM for credit are not doing a good job.

Worse, to discourage new GMs by promoting the attitude that "if you're doing it for the credit, you shouldn't do it" - when that's a great incentive to do it in the first place - makes it even more disheartening to see potential GMs never come into it (putting even more pressure on existing GMs).

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

I travel for work. I live in IN, but have played in PFS in CA and MO (I've GM'd in IN & MO); that mobility is one of the things I love about PFS.

Once I GM a scenario, I move on to another scenario so that when I go to a con, my character's level matches that of my wife's. Would I love to re-GM some of the adventures? Sure. And I might -- but I haven't yet. (I have a 2nd character which wanders free of that constraint).

GM credit is an important hook for beginning GMs; come to a table, and you walk away with a chronicle just like everyone else -- as long as you've never GM'd it before. In other words: if I'm willing to step up, my character doesn't suffer. After all, I started as a player, not a GM.

The question in this thread is: should I be able to walk away with a chronicle if I GM the same scenario again? It seems that the answer from the long-timers is "no", while that of those who haven't been around as long seems to be "yes". Perhaps this is because those who have GM'd for quite a while don't view the reward that is the Chronicle sheet as much as those who haven't been around as long? (Disclosure: really started playing last GenCon -- I'm in the short-timer group)

I don't think I'm in favor of a "generic" chronicle, but I would favor a continuation of "if you are at the table, you can walk away with that Chronicle's sheet." GMs who play the same scenario multiple times would have sheets for multiple characters -- more builds for you! -- without being able to play the same scenario over and over to push one character up through the levels.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I started my teeth at a GM as I envisioned my world of Mylais. I had hoped to "DM" and set up the world, then have the other players make their own sections and put their own ideas in the world as they started to run the game. This started in second edition.

Well, instead of working that way, the others started something else. One went with Ravenloft and soured my taste for the setting for years to come. Another built his own world, then destroyed it in favor of a new one soon after.

We grew apart, one moved away, came back, moved again. His brother did some stuff, moved with a girl and came back after they broke up. Our main group was three, and we started playing Pathfinder, continuing from when the mover had us playing Rise of the Rune Lords.

Now, I have gotten into the PFS, and have started to GM because I have played a lot of the scenarios over the years. (My second star is coming. I hear the invincamusic in the distance) I also have a sour taste about the direction of the play in 4th season (King of the Stoval Stairs needs Retired!!!).

Getting to apply the first running of a scenario to a character is nice, but to do it each and every time would be to much, if anyone wants to be honest about it. I have already seen a couple of "GM Babies" characters, who is played for the first time at around 5th or 6th level. I can imagine what would be if one had the generics like what is suggested here.

I can also imagine some GM's with over 20 characters and having to play a pregen for First Steps because none are first level.

The Exchange

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
CRobledo wrote:
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.

I am in the same boat. I pretty much only want to apply GM credits to get through the first couple of levels. I LOVE running high level mods (soooo much more chance for mayhem!), but I would really much rather be able to PLAY them multiple times than worry about getting GM credit multiple times.

I like running low levels for credit to get past the first couple of levels, but once I get to 3rd or so, I want to play. In fact, I like it so much that I tend to play all my PCs at slow once they hit 5th or so.

I would love to be able to apply GM credits in a sort of generic fashion for the first couple of levels. Maybe push them down to 1 XP/500 gp/2 PP/no item access or something. THEN, when I get that character up to the appropriate tier, get to actually PLAY the scenario with that character for item access/no PP/tier appropriate gold or something.

That would be best of both worlds for me. Credit babies then actually get to play the fun scenarios.

The Exchange

5 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the discussion has mostly simmered down, but there are a couple things worth mentioning.

1. People are being told not to GM if they do it for the credit in this thread. Sorry to say it this way, but "really?"

I GM for the credits. I GM for the stars, and I GM to grow the community.

I will state as FACT that scenario's are better when GMs have run them more than once.

I will also say I rarely run things more than once, because I want credit for GMing.

I help out as needed locally to grow our community, but I don't volunteer at gencon/paizocon because I would MUCH rather play than GM.

I'm a good GM, I'm not a great one. I know the rules, and my players have fun, but sometimes I have to pause and double check something. I don't read the scenario 4-5 times, I read it twice and print out stat blocks.

I GM for the credit, without the credit I probably wouldn't have started the weekly Game Day I have on Wednesday nights, which has had at least one table every week for almost 5 months, more recently 2 tables nearly every week.

Without the credit's I wouldn't have brought 10 players into PFS that consistently show up and play both at my events and the other events locally.

Saying that GMing for credit fosters a bad attitude is elitist and demeaning, I'm sorry for being upset, but I know how positively I have impacted the community and this thread told me that my motivations make me wrong. This leaves me pretty sour.

I'll use a REAL example. I have run First Steps a few times When I have new players that come unexpectedly to a game day I will run them through that because I get credit for it AND I know it very well, so I ENSURE that those players have an excellent experience and increase the likely hood that they come back.

WHY IS THIS BAD WITH OTHER ADVENTURES? Boons?
if boons are the problem, then Generic chronicles are the answer, and I'm all for that.

Also, it's not like they are hard. no boons, no items, gold as suggested by tier (just look at race for the runecarved key and you know what it is)


Benrislove I agree with everyword you said. I feel the same way at the ignorant "you shoulds" as well. The boards often do have an elitist attitude to them.


LazarX wrote:


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.

This is demonstrably false. Living Spycraft gave rewards for GMing, and predated PFS by a goodly bit of time. It grave you full XP for eating a module (as in if you have never played it), and 500 XP for running it each additional time.

You really need to get over the term 'bribed'. It's a slur and makes your argument into a matter of insulting the people you disagree with rather than actually making a rational point.

As has been stated here repeatedly, people have different incentives. I would wager a fair bit that a lot more people like to play than GM. Finding a way to incentivize that large pool of players to make for a larger pool of GMs, which can enable a larger pool of players overall is a good idea.

Suggesting that incentives is just 'bribery' is nonsense.

I would cite the Fox's suggestion, and suggest you live up to it. If you gain anything for GMing, be that free con entry, chronicle sheets, GM Stars, or whatever, give it up. Forgo it to prove your purity. I mean really, you don't want to get bribed right?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

3 people marked this as a favorite.

There are different sorts of GM incentives. The campaign began with none. Then half credit, then full credit, but only gold, XP, and Fame. Now boons as well. There's recognition for people who GM at least 10 games with the star system. There are Chronicle sheets given to GMs who attend conventions.

Do we have some people who agree to GM because of them? Yep; that's why they're called incentives, people!

There are other potential incentives that are clearly out of line. Automatic $1 product credit at Paizo.com for each session. Autographed 8-by-10 glossies of Mike ("I am smiling") Brock. Dice that Jason Buhlman has rolled. Jim Groves writes a scenario where you are the Mary-Sue NPC!

So, there's a line. Everybody agrees. There's some GM incentives that are fine. Others that are too much. Even if there are potential GMs out there who would rise to the occasion and GM, for the chance to get a Jason-rolled d20.

The question is: where do we put that line? Too stingy, and we drive off some GMs. Too generous, and we blunt the accomplishments of playing.

The OP has suggested that we increase the GM incentives more, and has given his reasons. Some people are arguing against that, claiming that there are GMs who would agree to run games because of the increase. Yep; that's why they're called incentives!

The question is: does this blunt the accomplishment of playing?

Maybe.

My counterproposal is to give GMs a Chronicle sheet for running a scenario twice (not once) and then also give a generic batch of XP, Fame, and GP to GMs every time they run the same scenario 5 times. So, if I run "Dalsine Affair" 10 times, I'd get (a) a "Dalsine" Chronicle sheet after the second time I ran it, (b) AGeneric reward after my fifth run, and another after my 10th run, and (c) a lot of dead PCs, but that's neither here nor there.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Pawns, Rulebook Subscriber

If being able to play your character is what people want, then why not allow a GM to forgo taking a 'free' chronicle sheet for judging (or, possibly, for judging the same scenario a second time), and instead allow them to replay the scenario for credit?

ob.disclaimer: This isn't an entirely original idea; one local event coordinator (and frequent GM) keeps complaining that he's running out of scenarios he can actually sit at the table and play.


Chris Mortika wrote:
The question is: where do we put that line? Too stingy, and we drive off some GMs. Too generous, and we blunt the accomplishments of playing.

Personally, I'd draw the line at in-game rewards: chronicle sheets, boons, XP, PP, GP. And I'd probably rank them in that order. Why? Because it keeps the focus on the campaign. Giving rewards that apply to characters would hopefully encourage those GMs to contribute to the community as players, as well as GMs.

It also means those same GMs can keep their GM credit characters roughly in line with those of their players, so they can enjoy time with them on the other side of the screen.

Your counter proposal sounds great for conventions, but not so much for local games. We tend to cycle the scenarios, so once we run it, it isn't offered again for another six months or so. That's some delayed gratification on earning your credit.

Somewhat tangentially: I don't know if they ever made a decision on a GM rating system, but I think it would be fun if GMs who received especially good reviews and/or consistently good reviews were e-mailed a special boon or chronicle. That would be a nice surprise and commendation for the GMs who go above and beyond.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

It seems to me that there are three types of GMs relevant to this discussion:

1) GMs who only run games because they love to do so, and who don't need/want any reward (or at least, any reward in the form of chronicle sheets to apply to characters).
2) GMs who run games because they want to, but who also want credit, which serves as an additional incentive.
3) GMs who run only for credit and would not do so if they were not rewarded for it.

Type 1 GMs would be unaffected by any change to the existing GM chronicle rules, because they don't care about the chronicles anyway.

Type 2 GMs are currently incentivized to run as many different scenarios as possible, because they only get credit for each scenario once.

Type 3 GMs are currently both incentivized to run as many different scenarios as possible, and dis-incentivized to run any game more than once (because they will not get any credit for it).

A change that allows some form of "re-GM" credit for running the same scenario more than once would encourage GMs of types 2 and 3 to run the same scenarios more than once. I think this would result in better game quality, as GMs would become more familiar with the material. However, it could also lead to less variety in games offered, since the GMs might not be pushed as much to run new scenarios.

I like the idea that someone had earlier in the thread about allowing re-running of a scenario for credit, but only being able to take slow-track gold and XP. That would enable GMs to get some credit for running scenarios they've already done, but still encourage them to run new ones. And it would not require any changes to the chronicle sheets or complicated additional rules to manage.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Tamago wrote:
And it would not require any changes to the chronicle sheets or complicated additional rules to manage.

Regardless of what any change may be, I'd be content if it was at least that.


Tamago wrote:

It seems to me that there are three types of GMs relevant to this discussion:

1) GMs who only run games because they love to do so, and who don't need/want any reward (or at least, any reward in the form of chronicle sheets to apply to characters).
2) GMs who run games because they want to, but who also want credit, which serves as an additional incentive.
3) GMs who run only for credit and would not do so if they were not rewarded for it.

Type 1 GMs would be unaffected by any change to the existing GM chronicle rules, because they don't care about the chronicles anyway.

Type 2 GMs are currently incentivized to run as many different scenarios as possible, because they only get credit for each scenario once.

Type 3 GMs are currently both incentivized to run as many different scenarios as possible, and dis-incentivized to run any game more than once (because they will not get any credit for it).

A change that allows some form of "re-GM" credit for running the same scenario more than once would encourage GMs of types 2 and 3 to run the same scenarios more than once. I think this would result in better game quality, as GMs would become more familiar with the material. However, it could also lead to less variety in games offered, since the GMs might not be pushed as much to run new scenarios.

I like the idea that someone had earlier in the thread about allowing re-running of a scenario for credit, but only being able to take slow-track gold and XP. That would enable GMs to get some credit for running scenarios they've already done, but still encourage them to run new ones. And it would not require any changes to the chronicle sheets or complicated additional rules to manage.

Yeah I agree on the quality issue. Giving credit for rerunning scenarios would most likely result in better games from GMs who are influenced by credit. This is because rerunning a mod generally leads to better GMing.

The irony is that critics claim that giving credit for rerunning scenarios would lower GM quality. The critics haven't specified the mechanism for this lowered GM quality other than stating that receiving credit in general lowers GM quality.

Liberty's Edge

[NERD RAGE] For the love of god, please stop saying that we are getting 100% more credit than before. This is Mathematically untrue. If we were recieving 0 Credit before, 100% more is still 0. Hell, 100,000,000,000,000% more is still 0. [/Nerd Rage]

I GM because no one else in my area was and I wanted to advance my character between Cons.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Well, I do have to ask why it is a *bad* thing to give GMs credit. If the GM is an infrequent GM, there won't be much credit floating around from this policy. If the GM is a frequent GM, then the credit merely serves to keep them at level parity with their players. Either way, it is far from unbalancing.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
graywulfe wrote:
[NERD RAGE] For the love of god, please stop saying that we are getting 100% more credit than before. This is Mathematically untrue. If we were recieving 0 Credit before, 100% more is still 0. Hell, 100,000,000,000,000% more is still 0. [/Nerd Rage]

So... what you are saying is that the amount of GM credit offered now is so much greater than what was offered in the past, mere mortals are unable to fathom the actual percent, yes?

151 to 200 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.