|
Personally I would like to see a generic "Volunteer" chronicle that people GMing a repeat game or otherwise assisting could receive. It would give 1xp, level appropriate gold and 2 prestige. It would give no boons, no item access etc. This could also be given to people manning the mustering station or front desk at Cons etc.
So instead I do things like bake cookies and arrive early and help the new players out.
I want to contribute but I also want to get chronicle sheets.
I don't see how this makes me a bad GM, or why some people think GMs should be self sacrificing noble beings that prep and run games week in and week out with little to no thanks.
Aside to aside:
This may be a cultural thing, but in the Bay Area Painlord has really put a lot of work into getting as many people to contribute as possible. I see many players cycling into the GM roll.
While in the Midwest I frequently see a division between players and GMs. People like Chris Mortika and Thea Peters GM all time. (Easily recognizable 5* GMs, whose contributions to PFS are frankly beyond amazing) While they play occasionally it seems to be a rarity. People see them as judges and see themselves as players.
While I'm loathe to say the Midwest is doing it wrong, and I'm sure my broad brush is inaccurate in places, I find the Bay Area system to be better. I find almost no antagonism at the table. I've never seen a player argue with a GM over a ruling. While rare I have seen these things in Iowa, and wish I hadn't.
Maybe it's the people and no amount of cultural difference would change what happens but it's the sort of thing that's impossible to know.
tldr: I'm in favor of some credit for re-GMing scenarios but not full chronicle sheets. I'm greedy and would judge more if that were the case and I worry that some places in PFS land have a "class" problem with players and GMs becoming too separated and am worried about how that may affect this discussion.
|
|
Its a short term solution to a long term problem. And once the short term satisfaction has run its course, the long term sustainability is still an issue.
Hmm. I definitely see your point here. Maybe allowing re-run credit isn't the best way to solve the GM problem. At the same time, when you're planning on having three tables on Friday night and enough players show up for four, someone who was not prepared will need to step up and run. Maybe that GM was planning on playing that night, but because he saw the need to sacrificed his slot and brought out an old scenario the newbies hadn't yet played.
He did this because he couldn't bear to send those players home because there was a lack of GMs, but even though he would have done it regardless, wouldn't it be nice if he got to keep one of those chronicle sheets as a 'Thank You' for stepping up in a time of need?
|
I don't think you are a bad person Pirate Rob. Everyone likes to be recognized for their contributions. Running 49 different scenarios and almost being 3-star is no small feat, and you should be commended for it.
For the record, I don't re-run a lot of stuff either, and I'm almost 1/5th of the way to 5th star. Which means of my 107 GM credits, I've probably got somewhere between 90 and 100 different scenarios or modules.
But then that's more due to the fact that when I coordinate things, I try to run things that haven't been run often in our area, and consequently that just means I haven't run it either.
But I have re-run stuff, and I don't mind doing so, for no credit. Does that make me a saint? No. It just isn't a huge deal to me to get a chronicle.
You've seen my story above regarding my characters. I may soon start not taking any GM credit for anything except to get over level 1. But that preference is more due to my experience with playing Vendel 5 times in 27 XP.
|
|
Its a short term solution to a long term problem. And once the short term satisfaction has run its course, the long term sustainability is still an issue.
Hmm. I definitely see your point here. Maybe allowing re-run credit isn't the best way to solve the GM problem. At the same time, when you're planning on having three tables on Friday night and enough players show up for four, someone who was not prepared will need to step up and run. Maybe that GM was planning on playing that night, but because he saw the need to sacrificed his slot and brought out an old scenario the newbies hadn't yet played.
He did this because he couldn't bear to send those players home because there was a lack of GMs, but even though he would have done it regardless, wouldn't it be nice if he got to keep one of those chronicle sheets as a 'Thank You' for stepping up in a time of need?
It would be nice if he got something. I'm not sure that particular repeat chronicle is the right answer.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I'm not sure I'm all that happy about the suggestion I'm a bad person simply because I like to play a scenario through before I run it.
For one thing, it probably improves the way I run. I make enough mistakes even after I've played a scenario, and have noticed that many of those mistakes come in areas where the play at one table differs considerably from the play at the other (optional encounters, different monsters in different sub-tiers, or just those pesky players doing things differently). When I ran "We Be Goblins Too!" on Free RPG Day I wasn't particularly happy about the way I ran it (without having played it, of course); I hope I'll be able to do a better job of it next time.
At KublaCon I ended up running in five slots, manning the PFS desk at a sixth, and playing in four. I'll be running all of the games I played there at my FLGS once we get past the August 14th deadline. I've also signed up to run a table at the store every week in June, and will be running at least one (and quite probably both) of the faction-ending scenarios before the deadline (although with any luck I will have played them first; we're lucky enough to have several other PFS venues within an hour's drive, so sometimes I visit them to play, and sometimes I'll run a game at their store if they are short of a GM).
|
John, we don't think you're a bad person, but technically it's a bad action. A bad action is one that you cannot universally apply to everyone. If everyone decided to wait to play a scenario before they ran it, PFS would be dead overnight. Someone has to burn a scenario first. It's just the way it works.
I don't think applying a GM credit chronicle sheet multiple times is going to solve many GM shortage problems. In my neck of the woods, I believe it would probably lead to 3-5 more scenarios being run over 6 months that would otherwise have sat unused after their first running. That's not that much.
If I was editing the Guide to Organised Play, this is what I'd do.
GM scenario once - Gain the GM credit chronicle.
GM scenario twice - Gain a second GM credit chronicle to apply to a different character OR get a credit slip that increases PP of one character by one, to the max of their EXP doubled.
GM scenario three times - Gain a credit slip that increases PP of one character by one, to the max of their EXP doubled.
And so on, and so on.
I had one idea where 3 rerun scenarios that apply no GM chronicle sheet would lead to a synergy +1 GM ranking, but I'm sure that system might alienate some 5 star GMs who earnt their stars the old fashioned way. It could also be difficult to program.
As for unexpected problems, I think we would see certain scenarios run again and again and unsuccessful organisation to get a table of popular boon scenarios going. Something like Green Market, Quest for Perfection or Way of the Kirin would have lots of GMs try to get 2 GM credits, as the boons are better than the old 'loot and gold' chronicle sheets. Mediocre scenarios with great boons could easily dominate over fantastic scenarios with mediocre chronicle sheets.
|
|
I would love to see GM credit changed to encourage more people to GM. First allow a GM to apply credit to a different character even if he has already run it once. Honestly it should have always been this way becuase by GMing a second or third time, you are not gaining any advantage over the other players and they get a more prepared GM.
How many times have you GMed First Steps or We Be Goblins?
How much did the fact you could get credit on a different character affect your decision to run it again?
|
Change should not be made for the sake of change.
The more GM credit we offer into the field of characters, the more we dilute the actual playability of those characters.
I had trouble adjusting to both my Alchemist/Cavalier I noted above. This was a very complicated build, and it took me a level or two to get the hang of the character. By 12th level, he was pretty impressive, but I had to learn how to play him when I should already have known. Because I did not organically grow with him and learn him as I gained the XP.
I also had a two or three scenario learning curve with Sssstryxsss, my Saurian Shaman Druid. He was 5th level before I played him.
The point being, the more GM credit you offer into the pool, the more likely you are going to be sitting at a table with someone who doesn't really understand their character, and thus the better chance of a character death (not necessarily theirs) or a TPK. This is actually worse than a newby with a level 7 pregen.
And all those clamoring for unlimited GM credit, do you really think you are going to have fun with your GM credit babies that you've hardly ever played? Great, you got a level 12 guy you've played 6 times. Isn't this character the Bomb? Sure it would be if I ever saw you play it. Vendel Naughton is proof positive of this for me. He's a very fun character to play, that has hardly every seen play. That sucks.
Andrew, while I might quietly be thinking awarding credit to a different character for each time you GM, might be a good idea......encouraging more players to GM.....
I will have to admit Andrew, you bring up a very salient excellent point.
That the use of GM credit dilutes the playability of a character. and by playing a character you learn what he can do.....you don't learn anything from applying GM credit.
I have far too many PFS characters then I know what to do with, 16, i think. I guess i just like making characters. I have tried to have a character at every level, and I almost do..and one of them, has largely been built with GM credit. I realize this may not be a good thing since i may not be as familiar with the character as I should be.
Thanks again for pointing this out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Andrew, while I might quietly be thinking awarding credit to a different character for each time you GM, might be a good idea......encouraging more players to GM.....
I will have to admit Andrew, you bring up a very salient excellent point.
That the use of GM credit dilutes the playability of a character. and by playing a character you learn what he can do.....you don't learn anything from applying GM credit.
I have far too many PFS characters then I know what to do with, 16, i think. I guess i just like making characters. I have tried to have a character at every level, and I...
I'm in a similar boat, but feel differently. I'm on my 10th character. I have one at level 5 that I will almost certainly never play again, one at 4 that I will probably never play again, and one at 3 that may or may not get played again.
For me, I look at the XP accumulated on them and see a waste, because those are chronicle sheets that I'll never be able to apply to a character that I actually enjoy playing.
With multiple credits for GMing, I'd feel little more freedom to try out different characters for a few levels.
|
|
What about a generic GM replay credit sheet? The Rerun Chronicle could simply give X rewards to a character depending on their current level, which could be no higher than that of the scenario ran (and maybe even capped at a certain level as well). This way you do not see chronicle boons getting flooded (not that this would bother me) and then GMs could boost their lower level characters without having to apply it to the highers if they did not want to. I really don't want to apply any GM credits to my characters once they reach a certain level anyway, but would love to be able to use a rerun credit to get another character into the "fun zone".
EDIT:
Personally I would like to see a generic "Volunteer" chronicle that people GMing a repeat game or otherwise assisting could receive. It would give 1xp, level appropriate gold and 2 prestige. It would give no boons, no item access etc. This could also be given to people manning the mustering station or front desk at Cons etc.
** spoiler omitted **...
I guess I should have read this full thread before posting....I second this opinion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, it's good but for those of us who see GM credit as a way to lose out on chances to play your character, it doesn't do much. Still a good way to avoid spamming boons on all characters.
Perhaps there could be "GM only" vanities. For instance, options to spend prestige on vanities that you cannot take unless you are 1 star or higher. These vanities do not necessarily make your character stronger, but they make them more unique and stand out more. Anyone can spend prestige to get a thieves guild membership... but only GMs can spend prestige so their character can get Red Mantis training!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I'm only at 35 tables of credit, and I'm already unenthused about applying GM credit to my characters. All it means is that I lose the chance to play my beloved character for a mission.
See, I've heard this too, but I don't get married to one character--I have so many character ideas that I want to play. Seriously--I have 12 active characters right now and ... let's see. In my folder of quickly drafted character sheets for later use, I have nine that can start at level 1 and 12 that don't really start to be fun until they get at least a level of GM credit (some need as much as 5 levels because I'm really just interested in exploring the prestige class).
I like variety. I like trying new things. I like having a vast set of tools for any given situation. And yes, all the active characters do have separate personalities and motivations and I can keep them straight--as well as almost every other character I've played over the years.
I recognize that other people prefer to focus on a character or two at a time, and that's fine. That's the beauty of optional GM credit. If you don't want one sheet per scenario, don't take it. If they give us the option of one sheet per session, and you don't want that, either, just don't take it!
But some of us do want it, and I don't see why we can't have it just because not everyone wants it.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I recognize that other people prefer to focus on a character or two at a time, and that's fine. That's the beauty of optional GM credit. If you don't want one sheet per scenario, don't take it. If they give us the option of one sheet per session, and you don't want that, either, just don't take it!But some of us do want it, and I don't see why we can't have it just because not everyone wants it.
Pathar, I'm one of the people in the camp of "no extra GM credit". My reason is a little more philosophical than others.
But I agree with you. Andy's argument sounds to me like "I don't want any extra GM Chronicles, and I have good reasons. So you should not want any extra GM Chronicles, either."
And a lot of people are thinking, "Oooh. I guess that I don't want any extra GM Chronicles, now that I think of it."
But that doesn't negate anyone saying "Yes, but I do."
|
|
Andrew, while I might quietly be thinking awarding credit to a different character for each time you GM, might be a good idea......encouraging more players to GM.....
I will have to admit Andrew, you bring up a very salient excellent point.
That the use of GM credit dilutes the playability of a character. and by playing a character you learn what he can do.....you don't learn anything from applying GM credit.
I have far too many PFS characters then I know what to do with, 16, i think. I guess i just like making characters. I have tried to have a character at every level, and I...
I'm in a similar boat, but feel differently. I'm on my 10th character. I have one at level 5 that I will almost certainly never play again, one at 4 that I will probably never play again, and one at 3 that may or may not get played again.
For me, I look at the XP accumulated on them and see a waste, because those are chronicle sheets that I'll never be able to apply to a character that I actually enjoy playing.
With multiple credits for GMing, I'd feel little more freedom to try out different characters for a few levels.
Redward, Similarly, I have characters I haven't played for quite a while. I guess I don't see the XP credit (either played or from GMing) as wasted. I wanted to give a character concept or "rules build" a try. Then I got interested in another character concept. I may come back to the earlier character, I may not. Each month we get 2 new scenarios which can be translated into 4 xp credit. So there will always be more XP...and more scenarios to play and GM. So I'm not overly worried about "wasting" XP. Remembering which character can speak Alklo which and which character can speak Tien well that can be a challenge.
|
|
I have one at level 5 that I will almost certainly never play again, one at 4 that I will probably never play again, and one at 3 that may or may not get played again.Out of interest: why not?
The level 4 is a hedge witch, and I've found that GMs tend to hate witches (and I tend to agree--Slumber and Misfortune can really ruin encounters). I may play her again, as I desperately want to play a healer, but she's currently near the bottom of the pile.
The level 3 is a mounted halfling. I still like the concept, but I've shelved him for now because I find the mounted combat rules to be confusing and contradictory and i don't want to trap myself with bad Feat selection. Hoping for some more errata or clarifications down the road.
|
|
You do get credit towards more stars.Ah, I wasn't aware. A cursory search turned up nothing.
Even reading through those threads, I still don't see any reason why credit shouldn't be given for running multiple times; rather, several reasons were put forward why re-running scenarios is a good idea, yet re-running scenarios is currently decentivized due to a lack of tangible progression when doing so.
As is, I have 5 characters, 4 of which are mid-to-high level. Would it really have a negative impact if 2 of them had a GM chronicle from Jester's Fraud rather than just 1?
Stars are completely pointless in my opinion. They're a small image that shows up in a restricted part of the forums(I spend far more time in Advice than in the PFS forums) and don't really differentiate anything other than 'this guy has been around longer'.
|
|
I'm not sure I'm all that happy about the suggestion I'm a bad person simply because I like to play a scenario through before I run it.
JohnF, I'm not suggesting that GM's who would rather play something first are bad. I'd rather play something first too. I rarely get to play first, but thems the breaks.
But there does, sometimes, tend to be a general attitude amongst some GM's, that they will straight up refuse to GM something if they haven't played it yet. Which often means you gotta scramble, scratch, and claw to find a 2nd or 3rd GM for a game day, when you have a player showing up to play who is completely capable of such but refuses to do so.
I'm more referring to the people who put selfish wants above community needs, all the time, rather than the general preferences of someone.
|
|
I recognize that other people prefer to focus on a character or two at a time, and that's fine. That's the beauty of optional GM credit. If you don't want one sheet per scenario, don't take it. If they give us the option of one sheet per session, and you don't want that, either, just don't take it!But some of us do want it, and I don't see why we can't have it just because not everyone wants it.
Pathar, I'm one of the people in the camp of "no extra GM credit". My reason is a little more philosophical than others.
But I agree with you. Andy's argument sounds to me like "I don't want any extra GM Chronicles, and I have good reasons. So you should not want any extra GM Chronicles, either."
And a lot of people are thinking, "Oooh. I guess that I don't want any extra GM Chronicles, now that I think of it."
But that doesn't negate anyone saying "Yes, but I do."
This is a good point.
And based on experience, I guess what I'm saying is (and I guess I have no factual data to back up this claim, its purely an opinion), that GM's who choose to be selfish and won't do something without credit first or without playing first, will only take enjoyment out of this extra credit for so long.
The people we are trying to entice with this benefit, are the people who will generally find another reason to be selfish.
|
|
Stars are completely pointless in my opinion. They're a small image that shows up in a restricted part of the forums(I spend far more time in Advice than in the PFS forums) and don't really differentiate anything other than 'this guy has been around longer'.
Get enough of them and you get access to specials early.
|
|
Get enough of them and you get access to specials early.
Stars are completely pointless in my opinion. They're a small image that shows up in a restricted part of the forums(I spend far more time in Advice than in the PFS forums) and don't really differentiate anything other than 'this guy has been around longer'.
Your reward for all this GMing is .... MOAR GMING
|
|
Your reward for all this GMing is .... MOAR GMINGGet enough of them and you get access to specials early.
Stars are completely pointless in my opinion. They're a small image that shows up in a restricted part of the forums(I spend far more time in Advice than in the PFS forums) and don't really differentiate anything other than 'this guy has been around longer'.
It's win-win!
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'll admit, for me cost is an issue as well.
I've ran Nightmarch 3 times now, in part because it's a fun scenario to GM (I finally had a party rescue the <redacted> Sunday! Huzzah!) and in part because I got it as part of Origins prep, so I'm not out of pocket. I've offered to run Way of the Kirin multiple times too.
*shrug* Maybe it's a bit double standardish, but yeah, I don't grumble as much at runnin a scenario I didn't pay for.
|
|
I'd love to see more re-playability on both sides of the table, perhaps for Full GM Credit and 1/2 Player XP for first re-play that's a non-tier 1-2. Incentive for both sides on replays, with replays favoring the GM could potentially get new GMs to not only decide to play for a star or two, but to also stick around for those 2nd and third run-throughs. I enjoy GM-ing (home games mostly) for the sheer enjoyment, but I understand the need for reward. I'd be surprised if it didn't take a GM the same amount of time in hours to prep a scenario as to play it (for the first time at least), why not reward them for that time as well?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@CFet,
No no a thousand times no on player replay for credit. Especially since the chronicle sheets are 'worth something' now.
Right now, even without GM credit, the scenarios with 'specials' are great carrots for new GMs to join in ("Oh, you played <redacted> with your cha 5 fighter but want the familiar? Well, why not plan to run it here in a few weeks with some other PCs and apply it to your wizard?").
In addition to ruining the fun for others at the table, "No we don't want to give <readacted> the paperwork, it's worth something in Scenario Y" it increases the 'got to catch 'em all' mentality.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The current system is fine. However I think there should be exceptions.
For instance at a big convention, surely you are better to run 3 adventures twice than 6 different adventures. Much easier to prepare 3 adventures for a con than 6. Here though you should get 6 credits worth.
Failing that surely they should open up certain races for the number of GM ***** you have ? Becuase to get to 3rd or 4th star requires quite a bit of effort.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think there's an urge to simplify the debate into two groups "GMs who want credit for replaying or they won't GM" and "people who call the pro-re-run crowd heartless bastards."
Andrew, for example specifically has *not* said everyone who wants credit for running a scenario again is greedy. The quote Victor used specifically doesn't.
Yes, there are always going to be the outliers. People who won't ever GM a scenario they don't 'get somethimg' out of (and sorry, I can see the point that 'more stars' isn't 'getting something') or won't GM a scenario they've not played first, *do* exist. Just like the Polymorph abusers, the "build from everything in the books" abusers, etc. We do (unfortuantely) have to deal with the extremes in this hobby, kind of like in life.
Likewise, I don't have to go outside this thread to find the "Greedy Bastards, in my day..." argument. I gave it the level of derision it deserved.
This isn't life or death here. We should be able to have civil discussions provided we honour the rules as written and intended in the interim. So please be civil, everyone.
I do still feel some kind of Re-GM credit is a good idea. Maybe a generic Faction point XP/Gold type credit? So if a GM likes "Death of an Andoran" and it has a boon "You now can change your faction from Andoran, because they're hypocritical jerks, without penalty" He can run it once and apply the boon, but if he runs it again on a different PC he just adds the gold/XP/PP?
Another thing I thought of. diminshing returns on re-runs makes sense. In the insurance industry we pay less on multiple surgeons done the same day, since part of the fee is assumed to be room prep, cleaning, patient prep, etc. If the doc is going to, say, remove a rib and insert a reinforcement of the sternum, it's less to do them at once. I call it they "Well. you're already in" rule...
|
|
Victor, Can we please notch down a bit please? Perhaps I'm misreading your tone, but you sound very defensive and combative in the way you are talking to me. If I'm wrong, sorry for misunderstanding.
There is nothing wrong with preferring to play a scenario first, nor is there anything wrong with wanting something for your efforts. It is natural and normal. Based on your star, you have somewhere between 10 and 30 GM credits. So I thank you for your service to your community and your willingness to help out when necessary. For the record, I prefer to play first and would like some recognition of running a scenario more than once. But I rarely get to play first.
As a coordinator, I try to make use of guys like you. But I try to take care of these guys as well. In other words, I don’t try to get the same guys, over and over, to run every game day. I try to make sure they get to play first (although that doesn’t always happen, but I make sure that the times you GM first are minimized). I don’t do this because my GM’s demand it. I do this because I know what my preferences are, and assume they would like the same courtesy. Occasionally, as a coordinator, I’m able to manipulate things so that I get to play first (or play at all.)
I know at least 1 five-star GM who prefers to play something before he runs it. Nobody is going to accuse him of being selfish.
Let me ask you this: If your coordinator (whether it’s a store coordinator or a Venture Officer) desperately needs a GM, do you step up and run it before you play it if you are the last option? If you do, that’s great. You are not the selfish guy I’m talking about. If you refuse to GM before you play, under all circumstances, then you are the selfish guy I’m talking about.
So my point is this:
Unlimited GM credit will only get those ultra-selfish GM’s to GM more than they do (which is probably rarely.) Those who aren’t selfish, likely GM as much as they are really needed, and getting them to GM more times really isn’t necessary. They already GM as much as you need them to.
And selfish GM’s are only going to remain less selfish for so long before they find some other reason to be selfish, or at some point they will get bored of extra GM credit (assuming they GM enough to get bored of it.) If they don’t GM enough to get bored of extra GM credit, then the extra GM credit isn’t really doing what everyone says it will do (get them to GM more.)
Note: you don’t have to take credit on your first run through of a scenario. You can take your credit on your 3rd or 4th time if you wanted. You just only get to take it once.
And finally: If you have a bunch of GM’s who don’t prep enough for their first run of a scenario is sucky, then offering GM credit so they will run it a 2nd or 3rd time is just enabling them to not prep the scenario even more. That is not something I want to support.
|
|
I agree, some form of reward for a GM to run a scenario again would be a good idea.
I'm not in the camp that the idea of another chronicle is the answer.
And I'm very open to discussing alternatives. But it seems very difficult to get past the idea that GMs deserve any sort of compensation with a vocal (but influential) minority on these forums.
|
|
I still don't think its much of a valid argument to say that enabling sucky GM to remain sucky because he now gets GM credit for running the same scenario...
I mean, I think it would be better to have a sit down with sucky GM (as a coordinator or Venture-Officer) and explain that Prep is necessary and if they won't do it, you'll stop asking them to GM at your game day.
But if you reward sucky GM for being sucky, then they won't stop being sucky.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
As a coordinator, I try to make use of guys like you. But I try to take care of these guys as well.
I wish every store coordinator was as considerate.
I'm just a little bit steamed today. Since the beginning of March my wife and I have signed up to run 19 tables between us at our FLGS (and in that time have played a grand total of 5 tables).
Our store coordinator just posted the schedule for the next two months. For eight of those weeks the announced scenario is one that we have both played (except for one which only I have played). I guess we're not going to be doing a lot of playing. He hasn't scheduled "Rivalry's End" at all (tough on my wife's Shadow Lodge character ...), and has ignored my request to schedule "Way of the Kirin" on a week where I could GM it in order to get a credit for my second Lantern Lodge character. My wife also requested a particular scenario she likes running not be scheduled on the one week we won't be available - guess what week it's being played?
We do have other game stores in the area; at this point I have to admit that we're sorely tempted to start offering our services at one of them.
|
|
I've played in a lot of living campaigns that don't allow replay or multiple runs for credit. But all of them have been pretty small and self contained.
{snip}
PFS is on so much larger of a scale than those games that you really can't expect the same kind of result.
Just to note that, as mentioned earlier upthread, Living Greyhawk (which very likely was at least as large as PFS, if not larger) didn't have replay, or *any* runs for credit. When you "ate" a LG module, not only could you not play it later, but you didn't get any credit for it to a PC.
However, much of LG happened on a regional level, where you had Triad members, authors, etc. who lived locally (more or less), and who could act as the "seeds" to start GMing modules.
In addition, in those days, the RPGA had a player rewards system, and (IIRC) GMing credits counted for at least as much in that system, if not more, than playing credits.
*Please* note, this is not meant to be read as, "GM rewards / credits aren't necessary." I think that the PFS system does a lot to make it possible to be an active GM while not having your PCs "fall behind". However, history does show it *is* (or, at least, has been in the past) possible to run a large OP campaign without it.
|
|
Just with regards to the First Steps comments, I've run parts one 4 times, part two 3 times and part 4 once. I also played through all of them before running it. I don't feel tired of it at all, I think they're important introductions for new players. I will only run it for brand new players.
Boo to endless replay credits, that's not a good idea.
If a Coordinator isn't scheduling Way of the Kirin and Rivalry's End in the next month, they haven't done their homework. Maybe they're not aware of the time limit?