Request for a generic GM credit chronicle


Pathfinder Society

201 to 250 of 267 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Netopalis wrote:
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.

I haven't seen any arguments about the credit ruining the player XP economy. Only that such a policy would attract greedy GMs and that greedy GMs are bad GMs.

So I've been thinking about this for a while, specifically about why people who GM a lot, and who don't particularly care about the credit, would find this idea so distasteful. Here's what I've come up with:

Let's say you volunteer at a soup kitchen. You've been doing it for years. Sometimes there's not enough volunteers, but the soup kitchen makes it work. One day, the soup kitchen announces that it's going to start incentivizing volunteers in order to attract more people. Maybe the volunteers get free meals, too, now. Maybe they get paid a small amount, or they get community service hours or a shiny button.

Now you might not seem like such a great person. Because people might assume you're doing it for the food or the money. You're lumped in with the other people who wouldn't be there if they weren't getting something in return. The pure altruism of your actions is now questionable in the eyes of others.

But if you really care about the soup kitchen's mission, maybe that shouldn't matter. Maybe you should trust that the soup kitchen is doing what it needs to do to survive and to thrive. And if people say "oh, you're just volunteering for the soup," you can shrug and say "at least I'm volunteering."

/clumsy metaphor

4/5

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
redward wrote:
/clumsy metaphor

I didn't find it clumsy at all. Regardless of what, if any, change is implemented, it will not affect why or how often I GM. And, as long as we have enough GMs to keep the game growing and healthy, I couldn't care less why or how often anyone else GMs.

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

That's an interesting idea, and it would explain the vitriol in the thread. However, that being said, I don't think anybody would look down on GMs who GM repeatedly due m to repeat credit. Players are, at least here, very grateful for their GMs' time and efforts, and seem to respect the fact that the GM could be playing instead. Don't even get me started on the thankless job that VOs have...

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Netopalis, I don't have vitriol. I have concerns.

There are some (very few) GMs who I have had less than enjoyable experiences gaming with, both as players and as GMs. They are a small minority of the current GM population.

My concern is that incentivizing GMing further than it is now will not only increase the absolute number of unenjoyable GMs, but may also increase their percentage presence in the GM population. Terribly GM'd PFS is not something to encourage, after all.

What absolute number of jerks do we want to risk having to invite out to keep play quality up, and is that risk of Mike needing to get involved that many more times in a year worth the change we're proposing?

THAT protection of Mike's time and players' experiences leading up to him getting involved are what I believe is driving your perceived vitriol.

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

Tetsujin - I am not necessarily responding to you, I am responding to some of the more incendiary comments that have been made.

*Most* GMs that I have played under have not been jerks. The ones that were were not jerks because of credit.

Does anyone have any evidence, anecdotal or otherwise, that the quality of GMs dropped after the single credit was introduced?

4/5

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
TetsujinOni wrote:
My concern is that incentivizing GMing further than it is now will not only increase the absolute number of unenjoyable GMs, but may also increase their percentage presence in the GM population. Terribly GM'd PFS is not something to encourage, after all.

I understand how and why that would and could be a concern; it is not, however, a concern of mine (not that anyone said it was, of course).

In my area, the VOs arrange the public game days and coordinate the GMs. I feel confident that should a particular GM be "of an undesirable quality," the VOs would take whatever steps necessary to prevent such a GM from running future tables at a public game day.


TetsujinOni wrote:


My concern is that incentivizing GMing further than it is now will not only increase the absolute number of unenjoyable GMs, but may also increase their percentage presence in the GM population. Terribly GM'd PFS is not something to encourage, after all.

So how does having a bad GM running the same scenario 3 times worse than having a bad GM running different scenarios 3 times? I simply am not following the logic here.

If someone is that bad, then VOs can ask them not to GM and organizers can remove them. I've seen at least one terrible GM removed this way.

4/5

TetsujinOni wrote:
My concern is that incentivizing GMing further than it is now will not only increase the absolute number of unenjoyable GMs, but may also increase their percentage presence in the GM population. Terribly GM'd PFS is not something to encourage, after all.

But if they're encouraged to run and run often (by getting GM credit every time) isn't it more likely that they'll improve over time?

I don't know of any way to attract only seasoned, influential and inspiring GMs.

Actually, I think I do:
Remove the restrictions on "run as written" and allow the GMs to apply all of their experience into making a scenario blossom. Please note that I also think that is a terrible idea for all of the reasons that Mike, and others, have spelled out

I do know how to attract new GMs, though, and that is by assuring them over and over that mistakes are okay, that the more experienced players will help them keep track of the rules, and to offer them some small token for their time and effort.

Even if they came for the credit, there's a good chance they'll stay for the fun. And that's the whole point of all this, right?

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber

Yeah. As I said, it's a concern. I especially don't want terrible GMs who are doing this independent of their local VOs to turn it into a significant (or more significant) chunk of Mike's time.

He's got awesome to make happen, I want him focused on that, and not on dealing with People Who Suck.

I'm coming around on the multicredit theory... I think Chris's system is a little more complex than it wants to be, and it doesn't support the good use-case of rotating GM duties among a home group, where the GM still gets a chronicle to keep up with the group. As far as I know that's still a use case we want to support as much as convention and VO-organized play.

Dark Archive

TetsujinOni wrote:

Yeah. As I said, it's a concern. I especially don't want terrible GMs who are doing this independent of their local VOs to turn it into a significant (or more significant) chunk of Mike's time.

He's got awesome to make happen, I want him focused on that, and not on dealing with People Who Suck.

I'm coming around on the multicredit theory... I think Chris's system is a little more complex than it wants to be, and it doesn't support the good use-case of rotating GM duties among a home group, where the GM still gets a chronicle to keep up with the group. As far as I know that's still a use case we want to support as much as convention and VO-organized play.

Okay, so there a large number of people here who are trying to understand you position more clearly.

Can you please explain why you think allowing GM X to get credit for running scenario A twice will attract more bad GMs than allowing GM X to get credit for running scenario A then scenario B.

How would Mike's time be more focused on dealing with People Who Suck in the proposed system over the current system. There's a leap of logic here that at least I am not understanding.

Many of us think that even with a bad GM, the second run of Scenario A will be more enjoyable for the players than the run of scenario B in the current system, where the GM might not even have read it before.

Sczarni 4/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Victor Zajic wrote:


Can you please explain why you think allowing GM X to get credit for running scenario A twice will attract more bad GMs than allowing GM X to get credit for running scenario A then scenario B.

I think this is the essential question. The only thing I can come up with is that if a GM were truly "punching the clock" with no regard whatever for running a good game, it might be easier (and more cost-effective) for that person to just run one game over and over. Probably that person would pick a short scenario that didn't require much in the way of GM work to run.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally do not feel that any decision on "generic" or repeat chronicles for GMs will impact how many people are GMing. I think new GMs get involved for their own reasons - whether it is to further their game days, to get credit for a character, or to get cash from their game store, I'm sure it is as different for each new GM as it was for each of the GMs currently debating in this thread. I think Redward is most accurate when saying that, to recruit newer GMs, it is most necessary to make them feel comfortable and assure them that vast knowledge of the rules set is NOT the most important factor in whether you're any good at GMing; that people are there to help with that, and you just need to present a fun story.

I really feel the reason you're seeing most people argue one side or the other on this is the same reason you see people argue one side or the other on replay. It's a contentious topic that brings out a lot of strong feelings on both sides. The proponents of re-GM credits (just going to coin that phrase, right now) are running into the "NO REPLAY!" wall due to the similar feel of the two situations. The arguments have, so far, felt very much the same: "You're playing for the wrong reasons." "Stop telling me what's right and wrong." "You don't understand what you're saying." "How I have my fun has no impact on your fun." Etcetera.

Graypark and I touched on that back a little bit in this thread. I encourage you to read those links if you are wondering how heated those debates can get. And, for reference, a new one started up in just the last 24 hours (though it is, so far, very civil).

Now, having pointed that out, please take a moment to look at this objectively:

If re-GM credit is allowed, I guarantee that players will come along and point at that fact as justification that replay should also be allowed. That is a thing that the campaign leadership is not going to allow. That is a thing that many of us "veterans" who have been around since this campaign first started up are vehemently opposed to (as I pointed out three paragraphs up). It is a thing that can generate far more antagonism than you are seeing in this thread.

Personally, the "who GMs for what reasons" debate is a moot point compared to that.

And, for the record, I am opposed to any kind of repeat credit for GMing. Not because it would attract the wrong kind of GMs (I don't believe that, just as I don't believe that the "right" kind are attracted by the current setup). I am opposed to it because I don't want the replay door cracked open even the tiniest bit more than it already is.

Now, getting back to the idea of a "generic" credit that can be applied independent of XP, PP, or gold? THAT I like. I wish that were being explored more in this thread than the idea of re-GM credit.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Chris Mortika wrote:
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.

I'm not going to go back and look through all the old threads after each of these changes were made, but my memory is that in pretty much each case (and you can add the not having to eat a scenario as another benefit GMs have received) the GMs that posted said that they were really happy with the changes and that they wouldn't need anything else.

What will people want after getting generic chronicles for replaying events?

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
armac wrote:

...the GMs that posted said that they were really happy with the changes and that they wouldn't need anything else.

Heh. I remember this, as well. It was when "GM before playing and get credit" was the law of the land. If you played before GMing, you did not get a chronicle for GMing. The hew and cry for change on that was fierce, ending with this statement:

"If you do this, we'll never want for more. We promise."

I may have to go back and find that quote. It'll be worth the time to gain the amusement, I'm sure.

4/5

Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Drogon wrote:
Now, getting back to the idea of a "generic" credit that can be applied independent of XP, PP, or gold? THAT I like. I wish that were being explored more in this thread than the idea of re-GM credit.

Another question, if I may (not necessarily directed solely at Drogon):

How would the potential for a character's Fame/Prestige to be at or exceed the maximum available from its attached Chronicle sheets negatively impact the game?
I ask (and this may have been proposed either directly or indirectly earlier in this very thread) because I wonder if something as simple as offering 1 PP to a GM's choice of character(s) for each subsequent re-GMing of a scenario might be a compromise that could appease both sides of the argument, as well as deal with some additional issues mentioned in other threads.

Dark Archive

I'm opposed to player replays, but don't see a problem with GM re-credit. And "But then they might ask for more" seems like a fairly weak argument, standing by itself.

Armac, I don't really see it as an issue of GM's "wanting more" for what they do. I think that the current system is putting it's incentive in the wrong place. If a GM has the choice between running a scenario he's run before and has fully prepped, and cold running a new scenario, the current system gives a reward for what will clearly be a worse experience for the players. That doesn't make sense to me.

Perhaps I wasn't around for the discussion years ago about what is fair for a GM to get credit wise, but I don't see that as a reason to not discuss obvious problems.

Personally, I think the proposed idea of GM re-credit would help the PFS culture grow and provide better experiences for everyone involved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tamago wrote:
I think this is the essential question. The only thing I can come up with is that if a GM were truly "punching the clock" with no regard whatever for running a good game, it might be easier (and more cost-effective) for that person to just run one game over and over. Probably that person would pick a short scenario that didn't require much in the way of GM work to run.

A, they'll run out of people to run it for, eventually.

B, if they don't, I still don't see why this is a bad thing. Hell, if they run it 2500 times they'll hit the ten thousand hour mastery mark! They'll be the undisputed BEST GM EVER for that particular scenario. People will travel from across the country to play this one scenario at the hands of this one GM. This GM might suck at every other thing. But humans get better at stuff with practice. This is not a bad thing.

Drogon wrote:
If re-GM credit is allowed, I guarantee that players will come along and point at that fact as justification that replay should also be allowed.

So we tell them, not entirely unlike a parent telling a child that some things are for adults, that if they want unlimited credit, they can GM or GTFO.

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

Also, for the record, I wasn't a part of these previous discussions, nor were several others who have posted. It's inappropriate to ascribe to us the promises of previous individuals who have taken a similar position.

That being said, I seriously doubt that spamming will occur. But, let's say that it did...the people involved in the spamming would only be hurting themselves. Why? Because the game is less enjoyable that way. Personally, I think it makes excellent sense to allow repeat GM credit and no repeat player credit, because a player replaying a scenario knows what is going on and a non-repeat does not. A repeat GM, however, is actually in a better position.

4/5

Ah, the slippery slope of player replays (feel free to use that url against me, btw. I'm sure I'll hit them all myself).

I'm sorry if previous posters promised to never ask for anything more. I'm relatively new here. But I don't think you can hold everyone in PFS ever to the words of a handful of people on the forum, a handful of years ago.

For the record, here's how I see all this:

  • Multiple chronicles for same character: No. I don't see how this could ever be up for debate.
  • Multiple chronicles for same player: No. Doesn't have the same blatant continuity issues as above, but having people play a scenario where they already know what happens shouldn't be encouraged (aside from the unfortunate reality of someone who has GMed a scenario first)
  • Multiple chronicles for same GM: Yes. If boons are an issue, then don't allow them for subsequent chronicles. Or...
  • Generic chronicles for repeat GM: Yes. Again, I see no reason not to encourage people to GM, and it helps keep GM characters at equivalent levels to their player base (more an issue for local setups).


armac wrote:

I'm not going to go back and look through all the old threads after each of these changes were made, but my memory is that in pretty much each case (and you can add the not having to eat a scenario as another benefit GMs have received) the GMs that posted said that they were really happy with the changes and that they wouldn't need anything else.

What will people want after getting generic chronicles for replaying events?

Aw, man, I guess I missed that section of the collective bargaining agreement when I joined the union.

Wait, there is no union?

Oh, so there is no collective bargaining agreement!

Well then I guess whoever (may have) said that wasn't speak for me, were they?

Conflict resolved.

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

Victor, Patrick, it is not that the question "might" be asked - it WILL get asked (it already does, as can be proven by what I linked to from yesterday). It is a question of whether this will lend credence to the argument that replay SHOULD be allowed. And, if re-GMing credit is allowed, it does lend credence to that stance. If I, as a GM, am allowed to get credit over and over for a single scenario, what valid argument is there for players to NOT get credit over and over for playing the same scenario?

And, Patrick, I believe you are being tongue-in-cheek, but telling a player to GTFO would be taking the same stance that you are upset about having been taken against you in this thread. Players are not children, any more than you are, and telling them to GTFO will invite the same criticism against you that you are leveling against others in this thread.

Graypark, I am not a math genius, nor a rules savant. Because of that, I won't speculate in an effort to answer your question. But there is an ongoing 850+ post thread debating gold and fame rewards where a lot of rules savants and math geniuses ARE giving their opinions. I invite you to read through that to see the arguments about exceeding expected reward levels.

If a "generic" credit were to be created, I would want it merely to be able to apply some sort of credit from higher tier scenarios to lower tier characters (and not simply to NEW 1st level characters). How those rules are created is best left to the campaign management.


Drogon wrote:
And, Patrick, I believe you are being tongue-in-cheek, but telling a player to GTFO would be taking the same stance that you are upset about having been taken against you in this thread. Players are not children, any more than you are, and telling them to GTFO will invite the same criticism against you that you are leveling against others in this thread.

Fair enough. So then the statement will be this:

"Thank you for your input. It has been determined that GMing the same scenario repeatedly will improve the experience for everyone involved, so we have decided to allow GMing for repeat credit. Since playing the same scenario repeatedly has the opposite effect, we are not going to allow repeat credit for playing."

What I'm saying is, we shouldn't not do something that makes sense because we're afraid we'll have to explain that doing something similar--but not the same--doesn't make sense. There is no course of action that will prevent replaying from coming back up (in fact, I just saw the start of it in another thread this morning), and I don't think the fear of that inevitability should prevent us from taking logical action on something else.

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

redward wrote:

I'm sorry if previous posters promised to never ask for anything more. I'm relatively new here. But I don't think you can hold everyone in PFS ever to the words of a handful of people on the forum, a handful of years ago.

Did I say "you?" I'm reasonably certain I did not.

So, let me clarify: it is worth the amusement to me to go look at that. Simply reading armac's post made me chuckle with remembrance. If I had to speculate on the results of that statement I quoted, I would say that someone very likely said "YOU won't ask, but SOMEONE will." And I am sure the debate raged from there (it was another fierce one).

I will never hold your current opinions against you, nor will I ascribe to you the opinions of people you don't know and haven't met. You are allowed to have your own, and I understand why you're asking for what you want.

Please don't be upset with me when I present things to you that I think are a valid point in this discussion.

Edit: For grammar (a couple times; I'm terrible...sorry). And for this:

I don't think it's a slippery slope argument, Redward. When all of these things were debated, the next step in the debate was presented as a reason "against" almost every time. Often enough, the campaign membership does exactly what Patrick suggested - "Sorry, everyone, but we don't think it's a good idea, so it's not happening." But, sometimes, the changes were implemented, and people began speculating on what would come next.

Personally, I think the slippery slope is what we're already on. The more changes we make, the more complex administering this campaign becomes. Stabilizing it would be wise. Having watched as one campaign went through all these changes (and ended up failing), I'm worried about seeing similar things happen in PFS (and a similar result).

4/5

Drogon wrote:
Please don't be upset with me when I present things to you that I think are a valid point in this discussion.

Understood, and not upset. There has been some amount of "you kids don't know how good you have it*," but I don't think it was coming from you.

The fear that people will ask for more is similar to the arguments floating around against 1st-level rebuilds (which I was around for). The relatively few people against the idea were afraid it would lead to entire character rebuilds on demand. And sure, people still ask to be able to retroactively apply a new Trait or an Archetype, but the campaign doesn't seem to have any problem saying "no" and moving on.

*Which is also a silly argument. We shouldn't shouldn't stop fighting for women to get equal pay just because they got their 75 cents to the dollar bumped up from 70.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

Aw, man, I guess I missed that section of the collective bargaining agreement when I joined the union.

Wait, there is no union?

Oh, so there is no collective bargaining agreement!

Well then I guess whoever (may have) said that wasn't speak for me, were they?

Conflict resolved.

As Drogon said, it is more a comment of remembrance for those of us who were here.

I didn't say anyone was selfish or not a good GM, or anything else that was brought forth elsewhere in this thread. I was just putting it forward that if this is granted it is likely that in the future other GMs will ask for something else. And guess what? They are not likely here right now to agree with what is being asked for now.

Silver Crusade

graypark wrote:
I ask (and this may have been proposed either directly or indirectly earlier in this very thread) because I wonder if something as simple as offering 1 PP to a GM's choice of character(s) for each subsequent re-GMing of a scenario might be a compromise that could appease both sides of the argument, as well as deal with some additional issues mentioned in other threads.

I think this is a very good idea. As it is not XP, and it dose not give your characters gold. This could encourage DM's to rerun scenarios they have run. Just a blank sheet with 0XP, 1PP(or 2PP), and 0GP. Fill in the top with what scenario you DM along with the character you want to apply it to.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
redward wrote:

The fear that people will ask for more is similar to the arguments floating around against 1st-level rebuilds (which I was around for). The relatively few people against the idea were afraid it would lead to entire character rebuilds on demand. And sure, people still ask to be able to retroactively apply a new Trait or an Archetype, but the campaign doesn't seem to have any problem saying "no" and moving on.

However, I do think there are people posting that won't accept "no" if the campaign leadership decides they've given enough to GMs, and says "no" to the generic chronicle.

(Although that also could be a reaction against people that have accused them of being selfish, etc., which I don't agree with. I mean, really, there is no harm in asking for changes. But leadership does not have to agree to any.)

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
calagnar wrote:
I think this is a very good idea. As it is not XP, and it dose not give your characters gold. This could encourage DM's to rerun scenarios they have run. Just a blank sheet with 0XP, 1PP(or 2PP), and 0GP. Fill in the top with what scenario you DM along with the character you want to apply it to.

I know people that would find PP to be even better than gold or xp. It would allow them to get stuff for free, and also increase the limit of what they were allowed to buy. Personally, I don't like that option.

Personally, I have no problems with things as they are and would prefer to keep them that way, but if changes were to be made to allow GMs some sort of credit for re-running a scenario, I would want it to be the same chronicle to a new character. It doesn't throw any character out of balance that way.

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

redward wrote:

The fear that people will ask for more is similar to the arguments floating around against 1st-level rebuilds (which I was around for). The relatively few people against the idea were afraid it would lead to entire character rebuilds on demand. And sure, people still ask to be able to retroactively apply a new Trait or an Archetype, but the campaign doesn't seem to have any problem saying "no" and moving on.

*Which is also a silly argument. We shouldn't shouldn't stop fighting for women to get equal pay just because they got their 75 cents to the dollar bumped up from 70.

Whenever people make it about fear, I will stand with you. Fear of the future is never a good reason to avoid a decision in the present. And, as you pointed out, acceptance of a sub-standard position due to how bad things "used to be" is also clearly a poor position to take.

But TetsujinOni said something I think is valid: he wants Mike to pay attention to making this campaign awesome. I want that, too. I don't want him (or the Venture Officers, or me or Patrick, for that matter) to have to waste time quelling more and more requests for more and more "reasonable" next steps. The more justified a debater is about any given subject, the more energy will have to be expended to end the debate. I want Mike, Mark, and John to be able to focus on what matters: Story, character, and the excellent organized play system that already exists. And, from a personal gripe standpoint, I want to be able to come to these boards and not have to wade through the same thing over and over, again, and instead have interesting discussions with interesting people.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Maybe it would be possible to solve two problems at one time ...?

Here, we are hearing complaints that GMs don't get enough rewards.

Another perennial complaint is that the only way to get certain rewards (such as some racial boons during the first year) is to attend a convention.

So - rather than just opening up the Kitsune/Wayang/Nagaji boon for anybody in August, perhaps though could be an additional period (six months?) where anyone who had reached some GM milestone (e.g. run some number of tables as repeats) would be eligible for that boon.

4/5

Drogon wrote:
But TetsujinOni said something I think is valid: he wants Mike to pay attention to making this campaign awesome.

Absolutely, 100% agree. If I had to choose between extra GM chronicles and the (what I believe to be) excellent creative direction that Season 4 has taken, I would choose the latter in a heartbeat.

That said, I think the level 1 rebuilds were a really good idea that encourages new players to focus on playing up front, rather than character creation system mastery. Giving GM credit access to Boons didn't really concern me either way, but I know some people felt strongly about that and I can't see a reason why they shouldn't get it. Unbanning Magical Knack was a very small change that made a lot of people happy, and again, to which I see no downside.

The focus should always be on the creative direction of the campaign. But these little mechanical things do make a difference.

If multiple GM credit is on the table, my vote is "yes, please." If it's not, that's fine. I'll probably slow down as I run out of new scenarios to run, but I will also probably re-run a few that I really enjoy, even without that delicious GM credit.

Drogon wrote:
The more justified a debater is about any given subject, the more energy will have to be expended to end the debate.

I think these discussions are valuable no matter which direction the campaign chooses. I don't think we should avoid talking about it out of fear of distracting MJM. And if the subject is justified, then maybe the debate shouldn't be ended. Maybe multiple chronicles should be allowed. I don't think so now, but I'm willing to listen.

And now I'm pretty sure I've exhausted whatever capacity I have to add to this conversation. Probably quite some time ago. So I'll see myself out and focus my energies on prepping Among the Living for this Monday. And maybe doing some work. I should probably do some work.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Victor Zajic wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:

Yeah. As I said, it's a concern. I especially don't want terrible GMs who are doing this independent of their local VOs to turn it into a significant (or more significant) chunk of Mike's time.

He's got awesome to make happen, I want him focused on that, and not on dealing with People Who Suck.

Okay, so there a large number of people here who are trying to understand you position more clearly.

Can you please explain why you think allowing GM X to get credit for running scenario A twice will attract more bad GMs than allowing GM X to get credit for running scenario A then scenario B.

Okay, so at the moment we generate a certain number of new GMs per month, NGM, with our current incentive system.

Of them, Mike has to deal with a certain amount of time taken up by people who take him up on the "email me about problems". Call the people these complaints are about NPS.

If we increase NGM, it will increase NPS if we do not change the average quality of the GM that's coming in, by virtue of simple scaling.

If we increase NGM by a program that increases the desire of players who we generally wouldn't want GMing but let in because of GSF-1 , or simple need for more tables, we will increase NPS faster than we would by the simple scaling acceleration.

I want us to examine the proposals we're looking at in light of this concern, because I don't agree that a second run by a terrible GM (or a good GM who just has a bad fit for a scenario) is necessarily something which will be good for increasing overall number of players served by the organized play campaign.

Ya'll are starting to convince me the increase in NGM could be sufficiently high to be worth the risk of over-increase of NPS I'm concerned with.

I already know that increasing NGM will increase NPS, and thus Mike's workload. It's inevitable with population growth.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chris Mortika wrote:
Autographed 8-by-10 glossies of Mike ("I am smiling") Brock.

Why can I only Favorite this one time? Darn you, Paizo!

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

redward wrote:
Drogon wrote:
The more justified a debater is about any given subject, the more energy will have to be expended to end the debate.

I think these discussions are valuable no matter which direction the campaign chooses. I don't think we should avoid talking about it out of fear of distracting MJM. And if the subject is justified, then maybe the debate shouldn't be ended. Maybe multiple chronicles should be allowed. I don't think so now, but I'm willing to listen.

Excellent point, and something I was trying very hard to put into words.

The debate between everyone on this thread is great. Paizo listens to its customers, and has proven that it often takes what they say into account. We're all trying to get our voice heard. And, often, back and forth argument is simply an extension of that desire to be heard. I don't see anyone's stance for or against anything as something to hold against that person. I do see that stance as something I should always respond to, as I don't want my voice to not be heard (assuming it's an issue I care about).


I am a greedy GM. Have you played with me to decide I am a bad GM? Or are you guessing and assuming making clumsy theories?

Dark Archive

TetsujinOni wrote:
Victor Zajic wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:

Yeah. As I said, it's a concern. I especially don't want terrible GMs who are doing this independent of their local VOs to turn it into a significant (or more significant) chunk of Mike's time.

He's got awesome to make happen, I want him focused on that, and not on dealing with People Who Suck.

Okay, so there a large number of people here who are trying to understand you position more clearly.

Can you please explain why you think allowing GM X to get credit for running scenario A twice will attract more bad GMs than allowing GM X to get credit for running scenario A then scenario B.

Okay, so at the moment we generate a certain number of new GMs per month, NGM, with our current incentive system.

Of them, Mike has to deal with a certain amount of time taken up by people who take him up on the "email me about problems". Call the people these complaints are about NPS.

If we increase NGM, it will increase NPS if we do not change the average quality of the GM that's coming in, by virtue of simple scaling.

If we increase NGM by a program that increases the desire of players who we generally wouldn't want GMing but let in because of GSF-1 , or simple need for more tables, we will increase NPS faster than we would by the simple scaling acceleration.

I want us to examine the proposals we're looking at in light of this concern, because I don't agree that a second run by a terrible GM (or a good GM who just has a bad fit for a scenario) is necessarily something which will be good for increasing overall number of players served by the organized play campaign.

Ya'll are starting to convince me the increase in NGM could be sufficiently high to be worth the risk of over-increase of NPS I'm concerned with.

I already know that increasing NGM will increase NPS, and thus Mike's workload. It's inevitable with population growth.

Growth is happening right now, and the campaign staff is (rightly) encouraging it. If your only link between changing the current GM incentives and more bad GMs is growth, then any problem you see are unavoidable, and can't rightly be counted against the subject of this debate.

You are also looking at the problem out of context. It's not that a terrible GM running a scenario a second time is a good thing. It's that you're options are the terrible GM running scenario A a second time, or running scenario B cold because that's what they will get credit for under the current system.

I would argue that said terrible GM running scenario A a second time actually will improve the GMs quality. While giving incentives to run new material that they are not familiar with will not.


armac wrote:
As Drogon said, it is more a comment of remembrance for those of us who were here.

Fair enough. Sarcasm withdrawn.

armac wrote:
calagnar wrote:
I think this is a very good idea. As it is not XP, and it dose not give your characters gold. This could encourage DM's to rerun scenarios they have run. Just a blank sheet with 0XP, 1PP(or 2PP), and 0GP. Fill in the top with what scenario you DM along with the character you want to apply it to.
I know people that would find PP to be even better than gold or xp. It would allow them to get stuff for free, and also increase the limit of what they were allowed to buy. Personally, I don't like that option.

Huh. You just gave me an idea: What if we gave GMs PP that could only be used for vanities? You can't swap them for equipment or spells, but GM 15 scenarios and that townhouse in Absalom can be yours, all without touching your precious Raise Dead savings fund!

I don't know how many people would be enthused by that but I would be all over it.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Victor Zajic wrote:

Growth is happening right now, and the campaign staff is (rightly) encouraging it. If your only link between changing the current GM incentives and more bad GMs is growth, then any problem you see are unavoidable, and can't rightly be counted against the subject of this debate.

You are also looking at the problem out of context. It's not that a terrible GM running a scenario a second time is a good thing. It's that you're options are the terrible GM running scenario A a second time, or running scenario B cold because that's what they will get credit for under the current system.

I would argue that said terrible GM running scenario A a second time actually will improve the GMs quality. While giving incentives to run new material that they are not familiar with will not.

Right, our growth rate now is accounted for in the theory I outlined above.

I am concerned at the potential for changing the GM incentives is changing the dNPS to be higher than dNGM. Mike is currently managing a growing workload of what amounts to campaign customer service related email; I want to make sure that when we do something to increase dNGM we don't adversely affect the overall quality of the campaign experience. I am currently being persuaded that a change here could be worth implementing, though it doesn't seem like it would help in our region - far too many players have 0 GM credits and I don't foresee them changing that any time soon.

I don't see how this is out of context at all - I'm concerned about ANY change in GM incentives and how it affects this overall, mostly invisible to the players, campaign issue. I want that concern out on the table to be discussed, not dismissed because people don't see it - it has the potential to burn out the guy who gets all those complaint emails, and I want mike's time spent more profitably for the campaign.

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

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
armac wrote:
calagnar wrote:
I think this is a very good idea. As it is not XP, and it dose not give your characters gold. This could encourage DM's to rerun scenarios they have run. Just a blank sheet with 0XP, 1PP(or 2PP), and 0GP. Fill in the top with what scenario you DM along with the character you want to apply it to.
I know people that would find PP to be even better than gold or xp. It would allow them to get stuff for free, and also increase the limit of what they were allowed to buy. Personally, I don't like that option.

Huh. You just gave me an idea: What if we gave GMs PP that could only be used for vanities? You can't swap them for equipment or spells, but GM 15 scenarios and that townhouse in Absalom can be yours, all without touching your precious Raise Dead savings fund!

I don't know how many people would be enthused by that but I would be all over it.

As would I. I welcome any ideas that give characters more story instead of more kill capability.

Finlanderboy wrote:
I am a greedy GM. Have you played with me to decide I am a bad GM? Or are you guessing and assuming making clumsy theories?

I thought it looked like that portion of this conversation had been left behind. Is there a reason to dredge it back up, again?

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

JohnF wrote:


Maybe it would be possible to solve two problems at one time ...?

Here, we are hearing complaints that GMs don't get enough rewards.

Another perennial complaint is that the only way to get certain rewards (such as some racial boons during the first year) is to attend a convention.

So - rather than just opening up the Kitsune/Wayang/Nagaji boon for anybody in August, perhaps though could be an additional period (six months?) where anyone who had reached some GM milestone (e.g. run some number of tables as repeats) would be eligible for that boon.

I'd like to see this kind of thing, too. There are plenty of examples of organized play systems giving tiered rewards to organizers. It has long been asked for that something be tied to a GM's star advancement, and I would like to see that happen.

Dunno about race boons, though. I'm still (very) leery of of the "LFR Effect."


JohnF wrote:
So - rather than just opening up the Kitsune/Wayang/Nagaji boon for anybody in August, perhaps though could be an additional period (six months?) where anyone who had reached some GM milestone (e.g. run some number of tables as repeats) would be eligible for that boon.

I love this idea.

I would lay down good money that it will never, ever happen.

But I do love it.

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

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:

I would lay down good money that it will never, ever happen.

I might take your bet.

Grand Lodge

I think people playing scenarios that they have already run/GMed should be discouraged. It should only really happen when there's difficulty getting a table together, and even then the player should be careful in their recommendations to the rest of the party.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
KestlerGunner wrote:
I think people playing scenarios that they have already run/GMed should be discouraged. It should only really happen when there's difficulty getting a table together, and even then the player should be careful in their recommendations to the rest of the party.

So, you want to create a negative incentive to eat scenarios and play them later?

THat's definitely the opposite of what we're discussing here.

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

KestlerGunner wrote:
I think people playing scenarios that they have already run/GMed should be discouraged. It should only really happen when there's difficulty getting a table together, and even then the player should be careful in their recommendations to the rest of the party.

That's not what most people here are talking about - we're discussing a GM running (not playing in) a scenario they've already judged one or more times.

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

I have posted my piece, but will re-iterate that generic GM boons is a recipe for characters only getting actual play at 11th level.

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

thaX wrote:

I have posted my piece, but will re-iterate that generic GM boons is a recipe for characters only getting actual play at 11th level.

Which is why people are recommending that they be independent of XP, gold and fame.

And what about JohnF's suggestion? For every 10 "generic" chronicles you collect, you get a boon of some sort.

These ideas are valid. Don't think that people aren't paying attention to your viewpoint.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
redward wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Please don't be upset with me when I present things to you that I think are a valid point in this discussion.

Understood, and not upset. There has been some amount of "you kids don't know how good you have it*," but I don't think it was coming from you.

The fear that people will ask for more is similar to the arguments floating around against 1st-level rebuilds (which I was around for). The relatively few people against the idea were afraid it would lead to entire character rebuilds on demand. And sure, people still ask to be able to retroactively apply a new Trait or an Archetype, but the campaign doesn't seem to have any problem saying "no" and moving on.

*Which is also a silly argument. We shouldn't shouldn't stop fighting for women to get equal pay just because they got their 75 cents to the dollar bumped up from 70.

Equating a reward issue from a volountary hobby activity with the major struggle for gender equality is not only an act of false equivalence, it's an extreme insult to an ongoing movement.


Drogon wrote:
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
I would lay down good money that it will never, ever happen.
I might take your bet.

Done. $50 to charity of winner's choice. Deadline GenCon 2014. I hope I lose. :D

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
Drogon wrote:
Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
I would lay down good money that it will never, ever happen.
I might take your bet.
Done. $50 to charity of winner's choice. Deadline GenCon 2014. I hope I lose. :D

I'll do my best to make you happy. (-:

201 to 250 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.