Request for a generic GM credit chronicle


Pathfinder Society

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

LazarX wrote:
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.

An extreme insult would mock the movement. I don't see any mocking here. Quite the contrary.

Making an analogy isn't the same as equating. "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" is an accurate statement and should be brought up in as many contexts as possible. Too many people think equal pay and equal rights is yesteryear's problem. It's not.

In any context, I see equal pay brought up maybe every 6 months. This is especially sad given that I work at the college of social work.

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

Tamago wrote:
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.

To be honest, Tamago, given the current GM credit system, they already can do this.

How often can you run First Steps, Part 1: In Service to Lore or [/i]We Be Goblins![/i] for full credit? As often as you want and can find at least 3 players for it.

So, what would it hurt if someone decided to do that for some other scenario that isn't just a Tier 1?

@Drogon: I think your concern about people asking fro the option for replay credit, and trying to justify it with "GMs can get additional credits for running a scenario again!" are baseless. All that campaign leadership has to say, in order to pull the rug out from under that argument, is that GMing a scenario, and playing a scenario are like apples and oranges. The differences outweight the similarities, and that includes the differences that almost certainly make giving GMs the ability to gain multiple GM credits for a scenario different enough to not be of any use in trying to justify giving a player credit for playing a scenario multiple times.

"GMing a scenario multiple times gives the GM better understanding of the scenario, and the ability to handle the events in the scenario better each time they run it. Playing a scenario multiple times makes a player more familiar with the events in a scenario, requiring that teh player has to spend more energy avoiding metagaming and potentially ruining the story for the other players."

There are always going to be people asking for replay options. As a frequent player, who is running low on playable Tier 1-5 scenarios, I would love some sort of replay options, however, as a GM, I can see where it would benefit the campaign more to allow GMs multiple credits while still limiting player credits to one.

@TetsujinOni: I don't think your stance is actually oif any relevance to the discussion under question.

Additional GM credits for running a scenario multiple times won't, really, affect the number of new GMs, nor the number of problem GMs. New bad GM will GM for his single credit, whether or not multiple GM credits are available or not. He can still get multiple GM credits, since he can still get one for each different scenario he runs, so I don't see any relevance to multiple GM credits to the appearance of new GM issues, in all honesty.

In addition, as mentioned up-thread, running the same scenario multiple times usually improves the play experience of the later players, as the GM can concentrate more on the story he is already familiar with, and less on figuring out "What happens next?".

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

kinevon wrote:

@Drogon: I think your concern about people asking fro the option for replay credit, and trying to justify it with "GMs can get additional credits for running a scenario again!" are baseless. All that campaign leadership has to say, in order to pull the rug out from under that argument, is that GMing a scenario, and playing a scenario are like apples and oranges. The differences outweight the similarities, and that includes the differences that almost certainly make giving GMs the ability to gain multiple GM credits for a scenario different enough to not be of any use in trying to justify giving a player credit for playing a scenario multiple times.

I will agree to disagree with you.

I will throw in a side argument to go with my main stance, however: why should players be treated differently than GMs? Why should GMs get better treatment than players? And why would the campaign leadership ever want to invite that argument into the fore?

I already said I don't doubt the replay point will get raised due to re-GM credit. I also think more "Why do GMs get the cool race boons?" style questions will get asked if re-GM credit is allowed. I don't think there is any reason to invite either attitude to the table.

Make the credit independent of character advancement and you'll get me on your side.

Sovereign Court

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

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.

I could probably get behind that idea.


Drogon wrote:
kinevon wrote:

@Drogon: I think your concern about people asking fro the option for replay credit, and trying to justify it with "GMs can get additional credits for running a scenario again!" are baseless. All that campaign leadership has to say, in order to pull the rug out from under that argument, is that GMing a scenario, and playing a scenario are like apples and oranges. The differences outweight the similarities, and that includes the differences that almost certainly make giving GMs the ability to gain multiple GM credits for a scenario different enough to not be of any use in trying to justify giving a player credit for playing a scenario multiple times.

I will agree to disagree with you.

I will throw in a side argument to go with my main stance, however: why should players be treated differently than GMs? Why should GMs get better treatment than players? And why would the campaign leadership ever want to invite that argument into the fore?

I already said I don't doubt the replay point will get raised due to re-GM credit. I also think more "Why do GMs get the cool race boons?" style questions will get asked if re-GM credit is allowed. I don't think there is any reason to invite either attitude to the table.

Make the credit independent of character advancement and you'll get me on your side.

If the two groups were equivalent and movement between the two groups was closed, then these would be valid questions with hard answers. However, a lot more people want to play than to GM, which requires incentives for GMs and to get those incentives all a player has to do is GM. I.e., there is nothing stopping a player from GMing a table other than themselves. The race boons are gained by GMing one slot at a con with them, which isn't hard to do. Even at home games people buy beer and whatnot for GMs.

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

Furious Kender wrote:
If the two groups were equivalent and movement between the two groups was closed, then these would be valid questions with hard answers. However, a lot more people want to play than to GM, which requires incentives for GMs and to get those incentives all a player has to do is GM. I.e., there is nothing stopping a player from GMing a table other than themselves. The race boons are gained by GMing one slot at a con with them, which isn't hard to do. Even at home games people buy beer and whatnot for GMs.

I do see your point. And, for the most part, I agree with you.

But I wasn't asking the questions to get answers for myself. I was asking the questions that (legitimately) get asked by players already. Imbalance in the methods of earning chronicles will create imbalance between the two groups feelings of accomplishments. Players who have no intention of GMing no matter what the incentives are (and there are plenty of them) will begin clamoring for more. And they would be justified. Just like when GMs couldn't earn everything on a chronicle as a GM they clamored for more, and were justified in doing so.

I suppose this is going back to that "don't fear the future" and "I wasn't here, then" stuff.

Look, I think it's reasonable to step in at this point and say "Enough is enough." As a GM I have absolute flexibility in applying all the rewards from a chronicle in whatever way I see fit. Once. Just like a player does. I am fine with that equality, and don't feel a need to carry my "rights" further.

And if you don't think that isn't already slightly disproportionate in the GM's favor, I would like to point you at the chronicles for Bonekeep and Eyes of the Ten. As a player it is nearly impossible to earn everything on those chronicles. But GM it and you get it all without risk.

From the standpoint of fairness, there is no longer any justification in asking for more character credit than is already given to either side of the screen.

If this conversation is about incentivizing GMs (or new GMs) to run things more often, let's get that on the table WITHOUT going to character credit. It just isn't necessary. Give me a target as a GM to hit (hey, look, there are stars next to my name - what do they mean?) and tell me I get something every time I hit a target number. If repeating scenarios is what is necessary to make this work for some of us, then make that target number something that can't be hit unless they are running something they've already run for character credit.

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

The problem is, Drogon, there have been multiple calls for GM rewards at star tiers, and it has generally been said that it's not happening in the near future. Would that it were happening. I think it's even better to do that than repeat chronicles, since most primary GMs don't play that often. I'd love it if we were to get some extra downloadable goodies, maybe PDF face cards of the NPCs in scenarios (As it stands, I have to print my own to augment the two decks I use), or even a few limited time offers of discounted scenarios. (This week, 3 star GMs and above get 25% off on Season 3!) Unfortunately, that doesn't happen.

Grand Lodge

Netopalis wrote:
The problem is, Drogon, there have been multiple calls for GM rewards at star tiers, and it has generally been said that it's not happening in the near future. Would that it were happening. I think it's even better to do that than repeat chronicles, since most primary GMs don't play that often. I'd love it if we were to get some extra downloadable goodies, maybe PDF face cards of the NPCs in scenarios (As it stands, I have to print my own to augment the two decks I use), or even a few limited time offers of discounted scenarios. (This week, 3 star GMs and above get 25% off on Season 3!) Unfortunately, that doesn't happen.

I believe one of the main reasons for that is that they havent come up with anything they feel is suitable to give out as a GM perk per star, etc. It has been talked about at least a few times, but no one has been able to give Mike any suggestions that he liked enough to put into play.

If someone wanted to try that, I'd suggest starting a different thread about it, opposed to posting it in this one, but like I said, I think this has been tried a couple times already.

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

Seth Gipson wrote:
Netopalis wrote:
The problem is, Drogon, there have been multiple calls for GM rewards at star tiers, and it has generally been said that it's not happening in the near future. Would that it were happening. I think it's even better to do that than repeat chronicles, since most primary GMs don't play that often. I'd love it if we were to get some extra downloadable goodies, maybe PDF face cards of the NPCs in scenarios (As it stands, I have to print my own to augment the two decks I use), or even a few limited time offers of discounted scenarios. (This week, 3 star GMs and above get 25% off on Season 3!) Unfortunately, that doesn't happen.

I believe one of the main reasons for that is that they havent come up with anything they feel is suitable to give out as a GM perk per star, etc. It has been talked about at least a few times, but no one has been able to give Mike any suggestions that he liked enough to put into play.

If someone wanted to try that, I'd suggest starting a different thread about it, opposed to posting it in this one, but like I said, I think this has been tried a couple times already.

...which brings us back to chronicles.

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

Make enough noise about it and it will get heard, Netopolis. Paizo has demonstrated that multiple times.

I think the main reason is actually work overload and the amount of new work necessary to introduce a system like what we are talking about. And, frankly, the amount of work necessary to introduce "generic" chronicles for credit equals that. So, the two discussions can be housed in the same location.

I'm just going to say bluntly that it is not good to have a system of reward (stars) that doesn't actually reward. That needs to change. So, I'm making noise.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Drogon wrote:

Look, I think it's reasonable to step in at this point and say "Enough is enough." As a GM I have absolute flexibility in applying all the rewards from a chronicle in whatever way I see fit. Once. Just like a player does. I am fine with that equality, and don't feel a need to carry my "rights" further.

And if you don't think that isn't already slightly disproportionate in the GM's favor, I would like to point you at the chronicles for Bonekeep and Eyes of the Ten. As a player it is nearly impossible to earn everything on those chronicles. But GM it and you get it all without risk.

From the standpoint of fairness, there is no longer any justification in asking for more character credit than is already given to either side of the screen.

Fairness and 'rights' have nothing to do with it. If players look at what the GM is getting and want the same things then all they have to do is run some games. That's what an incentive is; that's how it works. That's what gets you those extra tables at a gameday or convention.

Generic credit (and credit for re-running) is one incentive that will appeal to certain GMs. Likewise, bonus prestige to use on vanities (mentioned above) is a great idea that will appeal to other GMs (with a fair bit of cross-over I suspect). Neither affects the balance of the game in any way and I haven't seeen a decent argument against either of them yet. In fact the only problem that I can think of is the changes required in the database, but it's nothing Paizo can't handle.

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

Stormfriend wrote:
Fairness and 'rights' have nothing to do with it.

This is only true until someone doesn't think it's "right" or "fair" to not have something others do.

Those words have been used over and over and over in every single argument for more, More, MORE! since this all began. Currently, they're not being used because, well, everything is fair.

Edit: Again, don't misunderstand me. I am largely on board with this idea. I just don't want it to be character credit driven.

Meaning: vanities are an excellent idea. Generic credits are an excellent idea (depending on what they go toward). I just want the focus to stay there.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Drogon wrote:
Stormfriend wrote:
Fairness and 'rights' have nothing to do with it.

This is only true until someone doesn't think it's "right" or "fair" to not have something others do.

Those words have been used over and over and over in every single argument for more, More, MORE! since this all began. Currently, they're not being used because, well, everything is fair.

Edit: Again, don't misunderstand me. I am largely on board with this idea. I just don't want it to be character credit driven.

Meaning: vanities are an excellent idea. Generic credits are an excellent idea (depending on what they go toward). I just want the focus to stay there.

This. (I still have my concerns cited above, but am willing to put them aside until we have some data from Mike on how busy he is fighting custserv type fires if we get an influx of new GMs this year, over last years rate of growth)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

If Paizo are having difficulty coping with the level of customer service then that would be a fair counter argument, but I've not heard anything to that effect, have you? For the moment I'm working on the assumption that Paizo want PFS to grow as much as possible and my original post was intended to provide one way in which it can expand.

Edited for clarity.

Grand Lodge 2/5

i think they need something like arcanis has where you get a volenteer sheet after the 1st run or play... cause there are times that i've ran something at the local game store and 1 or 2 out 3-6 will have already played... they'll either handout and watch or play a pregen just so they didn't have a wasted trip... but i'd be nice to give them a cert that i could give them for a charcter who hasn't ran... even if it's just a set gold, with 2 prestige/fame and 1 xp sheet.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Stormfriend wrote:

If Paizo are having difficulty coping with the level of customer service then that would be a fair counter argument, but I've not heard anything to that effect, have you? For the moment I'm working on the assumption that Paizo want PFS to grow as much as possible and my original post was intended to provide one way in which it can expand.

Edited for clarity.

I am operating on the assumption that we and Paizo want to grow PFS with the same or higher quality experience for the players participating in the program. I just want to make sure we don't lose sight of the possibility of decreasing quality as we work on getting more player to GM conversion.

Sczarni 4/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

Patrick Harris @ SD wrote:
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.

Interesting idea! It sounds like it might be a pain to keep track of, but I could see this as being a nifty sort of bonus :-)

251 to 267 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.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Society