|
Frostfur Captives is [1-5], not [1].
The idea is that we always have an incentive session to get new players into the game while rewarding the GM. Growing recruits is a priority.
Frostfur Captives is also ten times as much fun as any of the First Steps scenarios and still suitable for new players (and therefore more useful for recruiting.)
|
If it remained [1-5] it'd be suitable for *all* players and you'd have those tables taken up by non-newbies. So a GM would schedule it in, hoping for a nice new table for some fresh players, but it'd end up with 3rd-4th level adventurers jumping all over it, potentially pushing new recruits out.
On the other hand, tier 1 scenarios are specifically - you are new! you have no gold! fights are not so tough! They *can* be taken over by experienced players who want to create a new character, but this is rare (I've seen it happen once, and I was dumbfounded by it). More likely the experienced players accept that they should GM it.
|
|
If it remained [1-5] it'd be suitable for *all* players and you'd have those tables taken up by non-newbies. So a GM would schedule it in, hoping for a nice new table for some fresh players, but it'd end up with 3rd-4th level adventurers jumping all over it, potentially pushing new recruits out.
On the other hand, tier 1 scenarios are specifically - you are new! you have no gold! fights are not so tough! They *can* be taken over by experienced players who want to create a new character, but this is rare (I've seen it happen once, and I was dumbfounded by it). More likely the experienced players accept that they should GM it.
New players being bumped from First Steps tables for established players is something that should be handled by game day organizers.
It's also not something that would be as likely to happen with Tier 1-5 scenarios, because established players can't play them over and over again. If I want Frostfur Captives to be my recruitment scenario, I can run it every week, and eventually everyone in my gaming area will have played it--only newbies will be at that table.
I feel like the obvious counterargument is that campaign staff picked First Steps as an intro scenario, so it's presumptuous for me to insist that Frostfur Captives works better for that purpose. But the simple truth is that intro scenarios are best--and most fun--and therefore best suited to recruitment--in the hands of GMs who like them enough to run them over and over. Which is why We Be Goblins! is good. And First Steps just ... isn't. I'm not saying they're bad scenarios, but they're boring after a while. There are others that don't have that same problem.
|
|
They're essentially the Pilot TV episode of 'Pathfinder'. They're there to create intrigue, introduce the cast and the setting and show how PFS is fun. I think parts 1 and 2 achieve this admirably, while part 3 doesn't.
They also need to provide a more sandbox and creative solution rich environment, because GMs running it multiple times will not want the same things to happen everytime. The pelican house encounter is a good example of that.
Frostfur Captives and We Be Goblins, while great, doesn't meet these objectives. PFS isn't actually about goblins, or Linnorm Kings, or Irrisen. In fact, you *could* argue that We Be Goblins is a bad introduction to PFS, as it encourages psychopathic behaviour that you can't get away with in normal play.
I think the only reason people would want Frostfur to be replayable is because it's a damned good scenario, not because it gives any lasting information to new players.
|
|
They're essentially the Pilot TV episode of 'Pathfinder'. They're there to create intrigue, introduce the cast and the setting and show how PFS is fun. I think parts 1 and 2 achieve this admirably, while part 3 doesn't.
They also need to provide a more sandbox and creative solution rich environment, because GMs running it multiple times will not want the same things to happen everytime. The pelican house encounter is a good example of that.
Frostfur Captives and We Be Goblins, while great, doesn't meet these objectives. PFS isn't actually about goblins, or Linnorm Kings, or Irrisen. In fact, you *could* argue that We Be Goblins is a bad introduction to PFS, as it encourages psychopathic behaviour that you can't get away with in normal play.
I think the only reason people would want Frostfur to be replayable is because it's a damned good scenario, not because it gives any lasting information to new players.
I would be interested to see how many PFS players (who have started during the relevant time period) started on a First Steps scenario vs. how many started elsewhere. I'd also be interested to see what percentage from each group hit certain benchmarks after. In the absence of such data, I can't really argue which choice is better for bringing in new players. I suspect it's better to get them hooked on fun--you know, what with this being a game, and all--but I obviously don't have data to back that up.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most important thing about First Steps has been it's the best way to introduce new players not just to playing PFS, but to GMing PFS.
The fact that it's free, the newbie GM has most likely played it before, and will get credit for it, is invaluable. And it promotes PFS to those people that that person will run the game for.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
How many GMs are actually incentivized to run First Steps for new characters? I've only done it three or four times each and I'm already tired of it. And that is with getting a chronicle each time.
*raises hand* I offered to run first steps 3 this weekend for new players. Hoping someone else steps up, but I enjoy first steps. Then again, I'm a ham, so running Ambrose like R. Lee Emry, the Paracountess over the top, Grandmaster torch stealing from Sao Fang and the Scarzini boss like Don Corelone is hamtastic*.
I've also suggested taking a day and running crypt of the Everflame for brand new 2's if they want to get to three in a day. It's another 'evergreen' I enjoy.
*
|
How many GMs are actually incentivized to run First Steps for new characters? I've only done it three or four times each and I'm already tired of it. And that is with getting a chronicle each time.
I've only run First Steps twice and I'm tired of it. (I've played it twice too.) The incentive to get a chronicle each time is more or less irrelevant to me.
OTOH, I've run Mists of Mwangi several times and I still love it; it's the beginner scenario I routinely carry with me and will run any time. YMMV.
|
I enjoy running the First Steps series (well, parts 1&2 anyway) for two reasons:
- Parts 1&2 are written so that every group is different in what path they will take and what solutions they will come up with.
- Running for new players is fun and I enjoy helping people learn the rules and basic tactics when they start out.
That being said, I have never played First Steps and I probably never will seeing as I know way too much about the series.
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.
Sounds like he doesn't care about you or he doesn't care to listen.
Run a home game.
Scheduling PFS games 8 weeks out is pointless and mostly detrimental to the community.
|
Wouldn't allowing credit for rerunning scenarios actually help fix this very problem?
Lets say that you're GMing 9 times. If you run 9 different scenarios, all 9 scenarios are likely to go on a single character, giving you a 4th-level character you have never played. However, if you run 3 different scenarios 3 times, you will end up with 3 2nd-level characters that you have never played.
Re-run credit would actually push players to play their characters more than GM them, because they can't apply the same chronicle to a character twice.
What you're describing seems like an encouragement to have more characters...not play them more. Indeed, it seems to push a trend for lower level characters, which personally I'm not for. You need a healthy judge pool to have good play opportunities for everyone. I'm not sure re-credit of GM chronicles encourages that.
|
|
Good for you then that they (or I for that matter) aren't the folks you need to convince. The audience that matters is the very professional crew at Paizo who have a good deal of serious concerns to juggle. You either trust them to be fair and balanced in that juggling or you don't.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.
As Andrew said, multiple chronicle sheets may not be an appropriate level of compensation. I don't know what is, but I'm interested in seeing ideas, in part because I'm sure that the campaign management doesn't have the free time to brainstorm GM rewards.
When an idea is floated, it is met by a chorus of voices saying "stop being greedy and be happy with what you get." I don't think that's productive to the conversation at hand. However, if there is a good reason why compensation per scenario run is a bad idea, I'd love to hear it. So far I'm not seeing much beyond "I don't want it, so no one should get it" and "if you want it, you're not the right kind of GM for this community."
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re Multiples.
(All IMHO) If the rules were altered to allow multple GM credits, I'd limit it to two. (Kind of the multiple procedure thing I mentioned above).
Hypothetically, this would represent the payment (again, I work insurance, so I'll use the lingo) for preparing it twice (once at the low tier, once at the high tier). I don't see any need to impliment a mechanic to ensure it's one for one tier, another for another. Plus after running it twice I think everyone is exhausted.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
One suggestion I've heard is to have the "GM for no credit" benefit be something that actually allows you to play a second character.
Whether this is instead of or as well as being able to take a chronicle as a GM, and whether it is generic or tied to the scenario judged, can be discussed over the next א posts ...
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
While personally I am fairly satisfied with the current reward system, I don't think this is about what I want or even what other DMs want. Rather it is an issue of what is best for the campaign.
Once upon a time there was a RPG publisher that had a organized play campaign. The company paid their adventure writers, gave cool rewards to their volunteer administrators, kept track of everyone playing the campaign and rewarded people who GMed with small perks they mailed out to them. The campaign proved very popular in the beginning.
But over time, things change. The company cut back on funding the campaign. The campaign stopped paying authors for adventures and campaign rewards weren't as good. On top of that, in a misguided attempt to appease a vocal minority that felt it was "unfair" that people who invested the time and money to go to cons, GM, and otherwise supported the campaign got rewards that people who just played in the campaign didn't, the company decided to reward everyone equally. This, of course, made the whole reward system utterly pointless as it did nothing to motivate people anymore. So sure enough, soon after that, the company discontinued its entire reward system and even stopped keeping track of play data. This left the invested players; the ones who volunteered to GM, organize, write adventures and administer, feeling abandoned and betrayed. And they started leaving droves. Entire regions that were once bastions for the campaign collapsed because there was no one left to drive and promote the campaign. There were still plenty of people that wanted to play in the campaign, there just weren't a lot of people left willing to do the work to make it happen.
The moral here is that if you want a campaign to succeed you need to do whatever you can to make the organizers, GMs, and support volunteers feel important and rewarded. Because without these people, you have no campaign.
I lean towards allowing a GM to obtain credits for running the same scenario more than once.
To date, I have only run scenarios at cons, where the norm seems to have the GMs run the same scenario more than once - it allows more players the chance to play the scenario and cuts down a bit on GM prep work.
Like others, I do a fair bit of prep work, maps, fully stated encounter sheets (with templates applied), minis, etc..
I am more than willing to step up and run the scenario again for a pickup game when there is an overflow of players, even if it means that I do not get to play (and have done so).
It would be nice if I could get credit for the extra sessions, to at least allow me to have options for the times that I do get to play.
I understand that there are concerns that some GMs may run the same scenario multiple times if there is a really good boon in it and they got credit for each time that they ran it. But as long as the developers keep things balanced, then I don't think it is a really valid argument. Take a look at the two faction ending scenarios (I have only purchased Way of the Kirin) - the developers have put a very short expiry date on it, so the special boon for the right faction member would be hard to abuse (as you need to the right faction and be in a specific level range), even if they allowed it to be run multiple times.
I have some trouble with the lazy/greedy/selfish GM arguments. If a GM is lazy/sloppy, getting extra credit or not will not change their habits. A selfish (to use Andrew's term) GM may actually be willing to run the scenario more than once, to allow the other selfish GMs a chance to play in them (there only needs to one GM in the area who is willing to not play the scenario first). Credits for all scenarios GMed would eliminate the greedy GM argument, as they are getting something for each scenario run.
|
Matthew: How about a sorta half way in the middle compromise. Let a GM replay for Credit but only once for every sub-tier.
So a 1-7 (Which has the 1-2, 3-4 and 6-7) sub tier could be run by a gm 3 times but only once for each subtier. That means like you stated earlier the majority of scenarios could be run twice for 2 chronicle sheets (and some for 3). That way you are setting a cap on things, gms are earning their stripes (the majority of gms now prep for the subtier they are playing at.. they probably wont read the other tiers unless they get caught out). So every time you prep the scenario you get exposed to a slightly different encounter setup (different feats, spells, enemies that you need to learn)
The trick is remembering what subtier you ran it as previously, but this should all be recorded on a chronicle sheet which the gm should have in a very accurate format.
|
|
Matthew: How about a sorta half way in the middle compromise. Let a GM replay for Credit but only once for every sub-tier.
So a 1-7 (Which has the 1-2, 3-4 and 6-7) sub tier could be run by a gm 3 times but only once for each subtier. That means like you stated earlier the majority of scenarios could be run twice for 2 chronicle sheets (and some for 3). That way you are setting a cap on things, gms are earning their stripes (the majority of gms now prep for the subtier they are playing at.. they probably wont read the other tiers unless they get caught out). So every time you prep the scenario you get exposed to a slightly different encounter setup (different feats, spells, enemies that you need to learn)
The trick is remembering what subtier you ran it as previously, but this should all be recorded on a chronicle sheet which the gm should have in a very accurate format.
Man, I don't know how it works in your neck of the woods, but I've never been able to prep just one subtier, because I never know which one is going to go until I sit down and take stock of the table. And then half the time it changes at the last second as players get traded around between tables. We don't want to incentivize rigidity in planning; we should be rewarding flexibility.
|
|
We use Warhorn where one can list exact class and exact level. Ive never had so far (touch wood) to have to work out tier at the table. I dont think this is 'incentivizing' (yes I just created a new word) at all. Perhaps it was a poor assumption on my part thinking that most gms knew the sub tier well in advance. I was simply trying to propose a way for gms to get multiple chronicle sheets for the same scenario rather than a 'as many times as you run it' approach or no approach at all.
Pathar : Knowing about Tier beforehand I find very important. Esp at the 8-9 , 10-11 subtiers. There is just a plethora of special abilities, spells and abilities that one needs to be able to understand directly at the table. Perhaps it might not be as true on lower sub tier tables , but at the higher levels it is so.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
@Matthew (feel like I'm talking to myself)
I think the honour system would be the only option for allowing two runs at the GM apple. Trying to code the site to track which tier you've ran it would be a lot of effort.
That said, my suggestion works (of course) for me. If I have two GM credits, I've gotten my 'investment' out of the scenario and would have no problem running it again, and again.
I've no issue with rerunning gifted scenarios right now multople times.
When I ran Nightmarch at ORgins <redacted> sounded like Eeyore and MArvin. When I ran it at Packrat, <redacted> didn't speak up (most of the comments complaining about Kalkamedes kept him quiet) and if I run it again, <redacted> will sound suspiciously like JARVIS. "I'm not sure 'running up and hitting it in the nose' is approved by Sun Tzu. Leeroy Jenkins yes, but not Sun Tzu."
|
|
We use Warhorn where one can list exact class and exact level. Ive never had so far (touch wood) to have to work out tier at the table. I dont think this is 'incentivizing' (yes I just created a new word) at all. Perhaps it was a poor assumption on my part thinking that most gms knew the sub tier well in advance. I was simply trying to propose a way for gms to get multiple chronicle sheets for the same scenario rather than a 'as many times as you run it' approach or no approach at all.
Pathar : Knowing about Tier beforehand I find very important. Esp at the 8-9 , 10-11 subtiers. There is just a plethora of special abilities, spells and abilities that one needs to be able to understand directly at the table. Perhaps it might not be as true on lower sub tier tables , but at the higher levels it is so.
What abut when people don't show up? What abut walk-ins? What if there are two tables of the same thing and you aren't sure who's going to play which table?
If your experience is that none of these things ever happen, I believe that your experience is unusual.
Edit: Also ...
|
|
When an idea is floated, it is met by a chorus of voices saying "stop being greedy and be happy with what you get." I don't think that's productive to the conversation at hand. However, if there is a good reason why compensation per scenario run is a bad idea, I'd love to hear it. So far I'm not seeing much beyond "I don't want it, so no one should get it" and "if you want it, you're not the right kind of GM for this community."There have been good arguments against this... The fact that you don't consider them "good" is your subjective call.
I've seen the following as arguments against the concept of compensation per scenario run. Please let me know if I've missed any:
- I don't want it, so no one should get it
- GMs who need incentives aren't the right kind of GM for this community
Do you consider those good arguments? Because I don't even consider them logically sound.
I've also seen arguments specifically against chronicle sheets per scenario run, to wit:
- A higher profileration of GM credit babies will lead to players not knowing how to play their characters
- Unlimited GM credit will only get those ultra-selfish GM’s to GM more than they do
- Selfish GM’s are only going to remain less selfish for so long before they find some other reason to be selfish
But that's not what I was talking about in the post that you quoted.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm kinda frustrated with this response, since I've repeatably made it clear that turning down someone willing to judge in my area is not really an option. It would mean that 7 players who showed up at the event wouldn't get to play.
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.
So you'd rather have those 7 players have a crap time because of a sucky GM, than to ask one of those 7 players to give it a try?
That doesn't make any sense to me.
To be honest, I'd rather turn away 7 people after telling them that perhaps next week one of them would step up to GM, than allow a crap GM to give players crap time at a game day I organized.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Man, I don't know how it works in your neck of the woods, but I've never been able to prep just one subtier, because I never know which one is going to go until I sit down and take stock of the table. And then half the time it changes at the last second as players get traded around between tables. We don't want to incentivize rigidity in planning; we should be rewarding flexibility.Matthew: How about a sorta half way in the middle compromise. Let a GM replay for Credit but only once for every sub-tier.
So a 1-7 (Which has the 1-2, 3-4 and 6-7) sub tier could be run by a gm 3 times but only once for each subtier. That means like you stated earlier the majority of scenarios could be run twice for 2 chronicle sheets (and some for 3). That way you are setting a cap on things, gms are earning their stripes (the majority of gms now prep for the subtier they are playing at.. they probably wont read the other tiers unless they get caught out). So every time you prep the scenario you get exposed to a slightly different encounter setup (different feats, spells, enemies that you need to learn)
The trick is remembering what subtier you ran it as previously, but this should all be recorded on a chronicle sheet which the gm should have in a very accurate format.
yeah, that's too much work as a judge...I always try to find out what tier I'm running at before the table sits down. Back in LG the adventures could be run at 4 or more APLs (average party levels) 2, 4, 6, 8, etc...so trying to prep all of them was a fools errand. Premustering the tables, REALLY allows you figure out what's going on ahead of time...and that's what 'prep' is all about.
Warhorn, Warhorn, Warhorn...can't tell you how USEFUL a tool that is for running recurring game days or convention signups for that matter.|
|
We use Warhorn where one can list exact class and exact level. Ive never had so far (touch wood) to have to work out tier at the table.You've never come across a table where the APL falls in the middle of two sub-tiers?
All the time. And until recently, the party 99% of the time would play up in those circumstances...barring the "brand new level 1 character" playing up into a 4-5 circumstances, they would always play up. Season 4 has changed that somewhat, mods are more difficult, but most players are still choosing to play up in my experience.
|
|
We use Warhorn where one can list exact class and exact level. Ive never had so far (touch wood) to have to work out tier at the table. I dont think this is 'incentivizing' (yes I just created a new word) at all. Perhaps it was a poor assumption on my part thinking that most gms knew the sub tier well in advance. I was simply trying to propose a way for gms to get multiple chronicle sheets for the same scenario rather than a 'as many times as you run it' approach or no approach at all.
Pathar : Knowing about Tier beforehand I find very important. Esp at the 8-9 , 10-11 subtiers. There is just a plethora of special abilities, spells and abilities that one needs to be able to understand directly at the table. Perhaps it might not be as true on lower sub tier tables , but at the higher levels it is so.
What abut when people don't show up? What abut walk-ins? What if there are two tables of the same thing and you aren't sure who's going to play which table?
If your experience is that none of these things ever happen, I believe that your experience is unusual.
Edit: Also ...
On a recurring game day (using warhorn) I would start with just one judge and one table. Warhorn allows you to have "waitlisted" players if the table size goes beyond 6, for example. If I get more than one waitlisted player (at least 8 signed up to play), I'd see if I could get a second judge. If I can, great, we can then change the warhorn to 12 players and two judges. But as previously stated, players are signing up with a class and level character, so you can generally tell where the break point is between the tables, and what tier you'll be running. Warhorn is flexible.
If this is a convention setting, organizers typically open the signups for judges (if you judge you get first dibs on signing up to play games as well), and then a couple weeks later signups in general for players. The signups typically close a few days before the convention, so the tables can be populated. At this point you may have 3-4 tables or more of a given scenario in a given 'slot'. You can see things going this way though, as you observe the signups over the weeks leading up to the con, (the listings are public to all participants after all), you might see that a scenario you're signed up to judge has plenty of players for high and low...in that case, you might email the organizer and request to run a high or low table as you prefer, and see if they can accommodate you. If they can't, then run the other. You may contact the other judges of that scenario offline before con and work something out between yourselves.As the recent kublacon, we had tables for walk-ins, where the pre-muster signup was limited to one player, so that spots are intentionally empty for walk in players, and low level scenarios for 1st level new players as well. As well as games for teens, too.
|
|
I'm kinda frustrated with this response, since I've repeatably made it clear that turning down someone willing to judge in my area is not really an option. It would mean that 7 players who showed up at the event wouldn't get to play.
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.
Again, pre muster the tables. If there's no second judge, they won't waste a trip to the game day. Gas is expensive!
Warhorn, Warhorn, Warhorn!!!!:)
|
|
I've seen the following as arguments against the concept of compensation per scenario run. Please let me know if I've missed any:
- I don't want it, so no one should get it
- GMs who need incentives aren't the right kind of GM for this community
Do you consider those good arguments? Because I don't even consider them logically sound.
I don't either
I've also seen arguments specifically against chronicle sheets per scenario run, to wit:
- A higher profileration of GM credit babies will lead to players not knowing how to play their characters
maybe in the short-term, but experienced judges know how to play a variety of characters...its the nature of the job after all!
Unlimited GM credit will only get those ultra-selfish GM’s to GM more than they do
not sure I see GM'ing as selfish
Selfish GM’s are only going to remain less selfish for so long before they find some other reason to be selfish But that's not what I was talking about in the post that you quoted.
|
|
However, Ryan Bolduan, original V-C of Minneapolis (now just Mr.Slanky), taught me his method.
You pick a date, a scenario, and find some judges. Find some medium (whether its facebook, yahoo groups, meetup (our preferred method), or warhorn) to advertise, organize, and require RSVP’s to attend. If you don’t RSVP, and there aren’t any seats open, you don’t get to play. This requires training the player base to make sure they RSVP ahead of time, instead of just waiting till the last second to decide if they want to/can go and show up last minute. Our player base, by and large, is very good at making sure they RSVP for events. The Con, is that on the surface it may seem to be unfriendly or unfair to newbies, because it basically doesn’t allow walk-ups. I know at least one store coordinator in our area that always saves at least one, sometimes two tables, for walk-ins, but largely they organize by this method. It works, and we have 399 members signed up on our meetup site. We aren’t Atlanta or the Bay Area, but we are pretty sizeable. We also run anywhere from 4 to 20 tables every week within 30 minutes of almost anywhere you want to drive from. This requires folks to have an internet connection. The key to allow new folks to feel welcomed, is in how you advertise at your FLGS(s). If you have fliers that give them a link to your internet medium for signing up to play, and they are serious, they will sign up on that site, and sign up to an event. When I don’t recognize a name signing up for my event, I ask them if they are new, and then I get to help them with character generation and any questions they may have prior to the event, and maybe even suggest the best event in the area for them (e.g. the event at Fantasy Flight Games is typically a higher level event, but The Source always runs on the same day, at the same time, and typically always has 2 to 4 tables of tier 1-5 play.)
The other method seems to be to pick a date and advertise it on whatever medium you use. Don’t require RSVP’s, don’t know the scenario before hand, and make your GM’s basically run things either cold, or only semi-prepped (as in they’ve run it once or played it already). This has the most flexibility, as it makes sure that people can play whatever they want, and they can show up on a whim should they choose. It does not require an internet connection to make a game day and know you’ll get a seat if you show up early. The Cons include under-prepped GM’s, lack of cohesive organization, overburdening the same GM’s over and over, and perpetuating the need for unlimited GM credit per scenario. (obligatory on topic comment)
Frankly, as a player, I would never have gotten heavily involved in PFS if the latter were how Ryan Bolduan ran things. I like knowing what to expect. Show up, be told to go to table 1, wait for the other players and/or judge, and play (or judge). With the other method, I would show up, not knowing if I would actually get to play anything or if anything I could play was on the possible docket to be run, and constantly be frustrated by moving me around tables (or others shuffling near me and bumping into me and what not). Not an atmosphere I enjoy.
I know there are probably coordinators that do something in between these two extremes.
But by my experience, the more organized you are as a coordinator, and the more organized you require your player base to be, the healthier your player base.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **...
You are overlooking the possibility that you can use a sign up system and then get a ton of walk ins. That happens all the time at our game days, and we've never sent anyone home. Typically we get 2-6 walk ins per weekly game day, and only some of these are level 1s. We typically try to get a backup dm, but that isn't always possible. Thus, we need to add a fifth or typically sixth table on the fly fairly regularly.
As we have a large base of GMs, with at least 6 of them at least somewhat active on these boards, this is not a major issue. However, it would be made easier if getting credit for mods you've ran before were possible as I know GM credit is valued by the vast majority of our GMs.
I also believe that GM quality would go up a bit on our gamedays if rerunning for credit were allowed. Most of our GMs would prefer to not run a scenario more than once due to the credit issue. As there are multiple scenarios offered each week, this is pretty easy to avoid if you would like to do so, but this isn't always the case and I have seen good GMs just stay home as a result.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **...You are overlooking the possibility that you can use a sign up system and then get a ton of walk ins. That happens all the time at our game days, and we've never sent anyone home. Typically we get 2-6 walk ins per weekly game day, and only some of these are level 1s. We typically try to get a backup dm, but that isn't always possible. Thus, we need to add a fifth or typically sixth table on the fly fairly regularly.
As we have a large base of GMs, with at least 6 of them at least somewhat active on these boards, this is not a major issue. However, it would be made easier if getting credit for mods you've ran before were possible as I know GM credit is valued by the vast majority of our GMs.
I also believe that GM quality would go up a bit on our gamedays if rerunning for credit were allowed. Most of our GMs would prefer to not run a scenario more than once due to the credit issue. As there are multiple scenarios offered each week, this is pretty easy to avoid if you would like to do so, but this isn't always the case and I have seen good GMs just stay home as a result.
No, I wasn't overlooking that at all.
But frankly, allowing walk-ins like that (that are regular players) is doing a disservice to your GM's and the game day.
If you have a strict RSVP system, and players learn that they can't just walk-in, if they went to play, they have to RSVP, then you will end up knowing how much to schedule depending on venue and what not.
But most venues can't just add a 5th or 6th table in the Twin Cities region.
We have 4 tables max at some, and 2 at others. So we set up for max tables. If you RSVP you get a spot. If you don't, and there's a spot open, you get a spot. If you don't RSVP, and there isn't a spot, you don't get it.
And frankly, in the almost 2 years I've been coordinating things, I've only turned away 1 person. That 1 person was not a newby and he expected he wouldn't get a spot because he forgot to RSVP.
I mean if I signed up specifically to play (I get to do that so little as a Venture-Officer, store coordinator, and generally go-to GM), I want to play, and I'd be miffed if I was tasked to GM last second like that, because walk-ins were allowed.
First time, I'd like do it.
Second time, I'd let you know I wasn't happy about it, but I'd do it. You'd also get a strong follow-up email letting you know that I wouldn't be doing that anymore. If you want me to GM, then coordinate it ahead of time.
Third time, "sorry no, you didn't coordinate with me ahead of time. I'm playing today."
Fourth time, The V-O's would get a strongly worded email.
I'm serious. I think this fly-by-the seat of your pants scheduling and allowing your players to take advantage of multiple-table walk-ins is part of the problem of GM's feeling they need more credit for running the same things over and over again.
The situation is different if you are talking about brand new player walk-ins. But getting a whole table of those every time is highly unlikely. Usually you can get them on an already scheduled table.
|
|
I've also seen arguments specifically against chronicle sheets per scenario run, to wit:
One more for your list:
Currently there's a neat balance in player/GM credit (1 of each per scenario). Allowing multiple GM credit per scenario provides fuel for the argument that player replay should be (re)introduced; it's even happened in this very thread.|
|
We use Warhorn where one can list exact class and exact level. Ive never had so far (touch wood) to have to work out tier at the table. I dont think this is 'incentivizing' (yes I just created a new word) at all. Perhaps it was a poor assumption on my part thinking that most gms knew the sub tier well in advance. I was simply trying to propose a way for gms to get multiple chronicle sheets for the same scenario rather than a 'as many times as you run it' approach or no approach at all.
Pathar : Knowing about Tier beforehand I find very important. Esp at the 8-9 , 10-11 subtiers. There is just a plethora of special abilities, spells and abilities that one needs to be able to understand directly at the table. Perhaps it might not be as true on lower sub tier tables , but at the higher levels it is so.
What abut when people don't show up? What abut walk-ins? What if there are two tables of the same thing and you aren't sure who's going to play which table?
If your experience is that none of these things ever happen, I believe that your experience is unusual.
Edit: Also ...
On a recurring game day (using warhorn) I would start with just one judge and one table. Warhorn allows you to have "waitlisted" players if the table size goes beyond 6, for example. If I get more than one waitlisted player (at least 8 signed up to play), I'd see if I could get a second judge. If I can, great, we can then change the warhorn to 12 players and two judges. But as previously stated, players are signing up with a class and level character, so you can generally tell where the break point is between the tables, and what tier you'll be running. Warhorn is flexible.
If this is a convention setting, organizers typically open the signups for judges (if you judge you get first dibs on signing up to play games as well), and then a couple weeks later signups in general for players. The...
Christ, man, where do you game, Cheliax? I have never seen a game day be that orderly and frankly it would creep me out.
|
|
Im with Chernobyl, doing it without an organising protocol like Warhorn seems to be doing everyone a disservice.
And we seem to have gotten a bit off topic with the mustering issue, and I dont see how it's really related to the topic at hand, extra GM chronicle sheets. Again I dont even see why if we raise the topic of extra gm chronicle sheets, then we be extension raise the topic of extra Player chronicle sheets.
|
|
Christ, man, where do you game, Cheliax? I have never seen a game day be that orderly and frankly it would creep me out
After Comicpalooza's players and GMs not showing, scrapping tables that were organized and cobbling together tables from who was there, followed by Origins having actual tickets with names and confirmed tables with overflow GMs putting together tables of similar leveled characters with the walk-ins, I wouldn't want it any LESS orderly than that.
|
|
** spoiler omitted **...You are overlooking the possibility that you can use a sign up system and then get a ton of walk ins. That happens all the time at our game days, and we've never sent anyone home. Typically we get 2-6 walk ins per weekly game day, and only some of these are level 1s. We typically try to get a backup dm, but that isn't always possible. Thus, we need to add a fifth or typically sixth table on the fly fairly regularly.
As we have a large base of GMs, with at least 6 of them at least somewhat active on these boards, this is not a major issue. However, it would be made easier if getting credit for mods you've ran before were possible as I know GM credit is valued by the vast majority of our GMs.
I also believe that GM quality would go up a bit on our gamedays if rerunning for credit were allowed. Most of our GMs would prefer to not run a scenario more than once due to the credit issue. As there are multiple scenarios offered each week, this is pretty easy to avoid if you would like to do so, but this isn't always the case and I have seen good GMs just stay home as a result.
Ah. Well, typically the venues I play in locally (ha! 40 miles away...) don't have room for more than 3 tables or so. Once a month we might be able to reserve more of the store for a bigger event, but the cons around here come so often its not usually needed (Pacificon, Conquest Sacramento, Kublacon, Dundracon, and now there's a new conquest avalon coming up, for 2x a year in sacramento). Back in the LG days we even had 2 bay area RPGA-only cons just for LG...Theocracy by the Bay and Winter Weekend in the Pale...
Our major PFS event calendar is a bit more spread out and serves the needs of a wide geographic area - vacaville, davis, roseville, sacramento, typically single or two table events but on the order of 6-8 a week spread out at different times and days. mostly weeknight and weekends but some weekdays. our VC Brent does a hero's labor putting it all together and organizing things. his site:www.pathfinderfan.com
|
|
TriOmega: Is it common for Warhorn to be used in America to organise tables? I can only speak for a Australian perspective myself. ive actually seen in been used in conjunction with a con own registration system to quite a good effect.
we use it for all the cons here and many local game days in the northern california area, and have been for years...5 seasons of pathfinder, 4 years of LG, so at least 9 years in my experience. It feels really odd for random assignments at some of the out of area cons now. In my experience, in a convention setting, the absence of pre-mustering leads to poor tables character mixes, DM's running cold, and worst of all (in my opinion), late musters - nothing like a 4 hour game having to be run in 3 1/2 hours by an unprepared judge who didn't know what game he was running.
This is ORGANIZED play, right? then it should be! :)