|
Whenever someone proposes more GM rewards, a number of people argue that since PFS is the first campaign to give the GM rewards that it does give, everyone should just be happy with what they're getting.
Then this occurred to me: Given the consistent growth of PFS, it seems obvious that PFS is doing something right. Since PFS is the first campaign to give the GM rewards that it does give, doesn't that mean that's a good idea, which should be expanded? The argument that one of the things setting PFS apart from previous organized play campaigns is somehow not something that should be played upon for future expansion doesn't seem to make sense to me.
I'm hoping people can clarify their position on this, because it seems odd. I have at least two 5-star GMs in mind who have made this argument in the past; I'm hoping to see them here (and may email them if they don't arrive on their own).
|
It is a good idea to the point that it can be infinitely expanded without detracting from the Organized Play as a whole.
For example - anything that costs money for the company per item created (specifically product) cannot be expanded infinitely without creating a money sink. If you give everyone a print edition of a module, the printing cost of that module goes up per module printed, and Paizo loses money.
Boons, on the other hand, only need to be made once (usually from a format that has already been created) and can be distributed to as many GMs as we can produce - so GM credit, GM boons, or some other reward that does not scale in cost with the item created is much more feasible.
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
While I certainly can empathise with GMs getting more rewards, I would like to se it kept to the realm of giving the GM more variety, rather than more power.
If GMing a character up to level 7 gives you a character who is more powerful than a character played up to level 8, there is a serious fairness issue that should be considered first.
Also, I am a proponent of the happy middle. There is a danger in asserting if some of something is good, more of something must be better. Sometimes it may be, but sometimes it is not. And one problem with upping rewards, is that if you go too far, to the point where they provoke ill feeling, taking them away again provokes even more ill feeling, without undoing the damage you caused.
|
I, for one, was pleasantly surprised when they did up the GM rewards by giving a reroll bonus and replay ability. I do wish they would put it back to the replay count resetting annually, but can understand why they held it back.
However, (besides renewing replayability) what else can we ask for?
Tokens? WotC does/did this, and with the exception of one or two items, it felt like it was just cheap junk or something pretty much useless.
Boon? At what level? What types? This has the danger of overpowering GMs (who already have full gold, full Fame and PA each scenario and don't need to buy gear until played) further than they have the potential to be.
Modules/scenarios? 4-star GMs already get the EX scenarios each year. Plus, for every scenario a GM doesn't have to buy, Paizo loses money. Might not seem like much, but multiply that for each any every GM with that rating.
Of course, if rewards do get to the point of being the envy of all players, there will be too many GM's who are blowing through their scenarios just to get the prize. Yes we would have more GM's, but the ratio of GOOD GM's would dwindle. Hell, I'm at 60 games, technically 3-stars, and still don't rate myself too terrible high in comparison to other very gifted GM's.
Honestly, I'm happy with whatever Paizo deems us worthy to have. Till then I'm going to GM for no reward other than providing a good time for the players. But that's me.
In the end, the question is, just because more can be done, must it?
Actually, Living Arcanis allowed for GM boons as well.
And giving gp and xp out is free. Hint: It's not real gold.
|
Whenever someone proposes more GM rewards, a number of people argue that since PFS is the first campaign to give the GM rewards that it does give, everyone should just be happy with what they're getting.
I think this whole discussion falls flat because it's based on the idea that GM rewards are static. In fact, GMs now get quite a bit more now than they got in Season 0, and Gms now get more than they did in Season 4. Whether you feel that the GM rewards are too much, too little, or just right, you have to at least acknowledge that Paizo has put worki into increasing and varying the rewards they offer.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I have to say, I have been very impressed with the replay option and reroll bonus. The replay option has allowed me to redo two scenarios that I felt I didn't properly experience. The reroll bonus has usually been used when one of my characters is getting ready to fail at something that they should be really good at, like figuring out whether or not their deity would want them to do X, or being able to impress a particular NPC. Accordingly, I'm of a mind that the current rewards are appropriate, although if Paizo wished to do more, I wouldn't be opposed.
If I were to ask for one thing, it would be for the replay option to refresh every year, since experience thus far has shown that it isn't breaking the campaign and GMs are getting a lot out of their stars for it.