Proposition Idea / Thought Exercise


GM Discussion

51 to 79 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Lantern Lodge 5/5

nosig wrote:
The Terrible Zodin wrote:

....

Also, anecdotally, in my local area, the GM pool is at most 10% of the player pool.

How is this possible?

I mean, one in seven people has to be a judge right? Unless you turn 2 players away for each table, and a always have 7 player tables...

Percentage should be something greater than 15% right?

Or the same three GMs field a rotating player base of 30+ players. Omaha's close to that.


nosig wrote:
The Terrible Zodin wrote:

....

Also, anecdotally, in my local area, the GM pool is at most 10% of the player pool.

How is this possible?

I mean, one in seven people has to be a judge right? Unless you turn 2 players away for each table, and a always have 7 player tables...

Percentage should be something greater than 15% right?

Ok, you're right.

By our last warhorn signup there were 10 individual player signups and 2 individual GM signups. But we also have players who show up in the morning and leave in the afternoon or vice versa.

But my main point is (again anecdotally) is that if every GM farmed every boon it would still be only a fraction of the available characters. Many of which you wouldn't see because the GMs are too busy running the game.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
Andrew Christian wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:


I guess the goal is to try to get more DM's to run more often, but more specifically in the cases where it's not strictly required, (like when a table or two are close to or are maxed out), and another table would probably be the better option to make things more fun for everyone. When this happens, I think, and this is just my opinion, is that the largest barrier is those other GM's getting credit or not, especially when a lot of the people I play with have a very limited selection on what they can get credit for and how.

In this situation I'd actually say its better not to open up another table unless you had a prepared GM. Even if that means sending someone home.

Running cold should almost never be an option.

I disagree... sending people home should never be an option when a table can be run. Especially when you're talking people who've driven 40 miles to a game day or four hundred to a convention. You don't grow as a GM if you don't stretch your limits.

Running Cold should not be a limit one should stretch as a general rule.

I like to think I do reasonably well at running on short prep (or even no prep). But I hate it. I don't enjoy it, and I don't really learn anything from it, but that I don't like it and wish I would never have to do so again.

And if you region has a strict RSVP policy, and your players know this, then if they choose to drive 40 miles to a game day, without RSVP'ing, that's their own fault, frankly, if they don't get to play.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Jayson MF Kip wrote:
nosig wrote:
The Terrible Zodin wrote:

....

Also, anecdotally, in my local area, the GM pool is at most 10% of the player pool.

How is this possible?

I mean, one in seven people has to be a judge right? Unless you turn 2 players away for each table, and a always have 7 player tables...

Percentage should be something greater than 15% right?

Or the same three GMs field a rotating player base of 30+ players. Omaha's close to that.

QFT

Dark Archive 5/5 ⦵⦵

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Finlanderboy wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:


There are also some I only want to GM once.

There are some I have no interest in ever DMing. Cairn of poorly written shadows I am loking at you.

And having run this one three times now, twice at gen con, I'd still run it again. There is a lot there, if you go in and find it.


I disagree with the whole No Replay preposition...let people play as much as they want and apply the chronicles to whatever PC's they want...It's still only one chronicle per PC.
I have played a lot and GM'ed some...don't have that much time to prep for GM'ing due to my work schedule.
Lately I haven't even been able to play much due to the same old scenarios keep getting run...so I'm ineligible to play. This is bad for several reasons:

1 - I don't come to the store and spend my dollars at the store...the hosting store loses money
2 - I don't buy the latest and greatest Paizo product - Paizo loses money
3- I don't get to play so I look for something else to occupy my time...maybe D&D 5th Ed is starting up a campaign...might be the way to go...Paizo loses money

I play PFS because I enjoy it and the people....eliminate or reducing playing opportunities is not encouraging people to stick around.

Dark Archive 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Minnesota—Minneapolis aka Silbeg

Unklbuck wrote:

I disagree with the whole No Replay preposition...let people play as much as they want and apply the chronicles to whatever PC's they want...It's still only one chronicle per PC.

I have played a lot and GM'ed some...don't have that much time to prep for GM'ing due to my work schedule.
Lately I haven't even been able to play much due to the same old scenarios keep getting run...so I'm ineligible to play. This is bad for several reasons:

1 - I don't come to the store and spend my dollars at the store...the hosting store loses money
2 - I don't buy the latest and greatest Paizo product - Paizo loses money
3- I don't get to play so I look for something else to occupy my time...maybe D&D 5th Ed is starting up a campaign...might be the way to go...Paizo loses money

I play PFS because I enjoy it and the people....eliminate or reducing playing opportunities is not encouraging people to stick around.

But, in your statement, you point out that it is an issue of scheduling, not necessarily replaying. If coordinators would be rotating through the entirety of the 170 or so currently available scenarios, your problem would happen far less frequently. IF they only rotate the most popular 20, then everyone will have your problem.

Plus, this is a thread about GM's getting repeat credit on scenarios run.

Dark Archive 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Minnesota—Minneapolis aka Silbeg

Silbeg wrote:
Unklbuck wrote:

I disagree with the whole No Replay preposition...let people play as much as they want and apply the chronicles to whatever PC's they want...It's still only one chronicle per PC.

I have played a lot and GM'ed some...don't have that much time to prep for GM'ing due to my work schedule.
Lately I haven't even been able to play much due to the same old scenarios keep getting run...so I'm ineligible to play. This is bad for several reasons:

1 - I don't come to the store and spend my dollars at the store...the hosting store loses money
2 - I don't buy the latest and greatest Paizo product - Paizo loses money
3- I don't get to play so I look for something else to occupy my time...maybe D&D 5th Ed is starting up a campaign...might be the way to go...Paizo loses money

I play PFS because I enjoy it and the people....eliminate or reducing playing opportunities is not encouraging people to stick around.

But, in your statement, you point out that it is an issue of scheduling, not necessarily replaying. If coordinators would be rotating through the entirety of the 170 or so currently available scenarios, your problem would happen far less frequently. IF they only rotate the most popular 20, then everyone will have your problem.

Plus, this is a thread about GM's getting repeat credit on scenarios run.

Unklbuck, perhaps it would help to give suggestions to organizers about which scenarios they should offer. If, for example, you haven't played #2-03: The Rebel's Ransom, let a couple of the stores you play at know. Then they know at least one player will show up for that table (and if you haven't played it, it is pretty much a guarantee that others haven't). Organizers are doing the best that they can, and they don't always know what people want to play, so make their best guesses.

Dark Archive 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Getting GM credit for a character is a nice perk. A GM has the ability to achieve credit on a scenario a second time via the stars replay option. There is a boon making the rounds that allow you to refresh your star replay. In the short time since GenCon, I have already refreshed three stars, that I have not used in the first place. Most of these are scenarios I have run before, multiple times for some, and yet I still volunteer to run them.

There are other people on these boards who can speak better than I can about how all of us need to be better members of the PFS community. There are store owners, other venture officers, and people who care about the environment who have all sided against unlimited replay (or for this argument, re-credit, for lack of a better word). There is a reason we feel this way. From Drogon's perspective as a store owner to mine own as an organizer and VC, there is one common thread to all of our thoughts and reasoning. We do not want to see PFS be undone by replay. We have seen other organized play campaigns end because of replay, and with good management, leadership, and corporate support, we will not see it in PFS.

This is not a given, though.

As long as the current leadership is in place, there will never be replay; not for players, not for GMs, not for anyone. A player can accept this and continue playing PFS, that player can GM to increase their credit pool, or help the organizers at their local.

If a player wishes to do none of the above, I can't help them.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I understand and agree with most of the arguments against replay. I'm not sure how any of them apply to repeatable GM credit.

I see the fear of a flood of axebeaks or fairie dragons, but as others have stated, GM pools tend to be a fraction of an overall player base. And if more people start GMing to farm boons and we see a swelling of the GM ranks at the cost of a bump in booned characters--we'll, that's a price I'm willing to pay.

One thing I see popping up occasionally in these conversations is the idea of GMing "for the right reasons." Frankly, that sounds to me just as subjective and elitist and judgmental as "badwrongfun." A good GM (as received by her players) who only wishes to run for credit is still a good GM, and no better or worse than a GM who would never sully his honor with any kind of reward.

Until I see people start posting about their problems of too many GMs I'd entertain any ideas that might encourage people to run more games. Especially if it's encouraging them to run the same scenario multiple times.

Shadow Lodge

jon dehning wrote:
There are store owners, other venture officers, and people who care about the environment who have all sided against unlimited replay (or for this argument, re-credit, for lack of a better word). There is a reason we feel this way. From Drogon's perspective as a store owner to mine own as an organizer and VC, there is one common thread to all of our thoughts and reasoning. We do not want to see PFS be undone by replay.

Again, where is this coming from? Not the fear of it, but the idea that replay, or more specifically to this GM "recredit" is a bad thing? Or would ruin PFS?


So the overall opinion is that it is better to lose prolific players and customers than allow replays?
Not a good business model for Paizo or the Store Owners.
Everytime that I don't play the storeowner or Paizo (maybe both) lose out on at least $20.00 as I usually buy something to support the store.
No playee No spendee...not a hard concept

Shadow Lodge

I'm not sure anyone said that?

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Captain, Arizona—Phoenix aka TriOmegaZero

Unklbuck wrote:
So the overall opinion is that it is better to lose prolific players and customers than allow replays?

It's better to lose prolific players than to lose new players. Old blood hedging new blood out is just as detrimental as old blood bleeding out.

But then, DA is right that this thread is not about player replay.

Shadow Lodge

BUMP after the long break :)

4/5 Venture-Agent, Canada—British Columbia—Vancouver aka prong999

I've been systematically GMing every level 1-5 scenario I can get my hands on, because I didn't want to use up my replay. (I only have one star, and I am not sure if my replay would get automatically used if I re-run.)

What is frustrating is that at my local PFS we have added several new players over the last year, and it seems like we are perpetually running 1-5 scenarios. This is compounded by the fact that most of these new players are playing several different characters.

I've run a few series - Shades of Ice, City of Strangers, Devil We Know - that the players absolutely loved, and they tell the others, and they ask me to run it again.

So I guess if I could re-run scenarios for credit, that would help me. It would give me an extra incentive, and I wouldn't have to sacrifice my GM star replay.

However, I can also empathize with Andrew's point of view. I am already compiling a lot of GM credits, and starting characters at level 3. I've heard of other GMs starting characters at level 9. To me, that would take a lot of the fun out of the game. I mean, I actually want to play my characters.

I guess overall, I'd have to say I am against unlimited GM replay.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
jon dehning wrote:
There are store owners, other venture officers, and people who care about the environment who have all sided against unlimited replay (or for this argument, re-credit, for lack of a better word). There is a reason we feel this way. From Drogon's perspective as a store owner to mine own as an organizer and VC, there is one common thread to all of our thoughts and reasoning. We do not want to see PFS be undone by replay.
Again, where is this coming from? Not the fear of it, but the idea that replay, or more specifically to this GM "recredit" is a bad thing? Or would ruin PFS?

Mike and Drogon have repeatedly stated thier actual experiences I'm other threads. What happens is veteran players dominate the tables, new folk feel intimidated, and no matter how good a roleplayer you are, a table full of replayers is going to provide a lesser experience for that one new player.

We've already seen abuse of replay with Master of the Fallen Fortress and Confirmation with people running 10 sessions in less than 8 hours. Someone even posted a best of 23 minutes.

@unklbuck, I have yet to have you ask me for a specific scenario. If you don't make known to your organizers what you can still play, then I can't schedule those scenarios. Send me a list. I'll see what I can do.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
prong999 wrote:

I've been systematically GMing every level 1-5 scenario I can get my hands on, because I didn't want to use up my replay. (I only have one star, and I am not sure if my replay would get automatically used if I re-run.)

What is frustrating is that at my local PFS we have added several new players over the last year, and it seems like we are perpetually running 1-5 scenarios. This is compounded by the fact that most of these new players are playing several different characters.

I've run a few series - Shades of Ice, City of Strangers, Devil We Know - that the players absolutely loved, and they tell the others, and they ask me to run it again.

So I guess if I could re-run scenarios for credit, that would help me. It would give me an extra incentive, and I wouldn't have to sacrifice my GM star replay.

However, I can also empathize with Andrew's point of view. I am already compiling a lot of GM credits, and starting characters at level 3. I've heard of other GMs starting characters at level 9. To me, that would take a lot of the fun out of the game. I mean, I actually want to play my characters.

I guess overall, I'd have to say I am against unlimited GM replay.

Re-running a scenario will only use up your GM star replay if you actually assign it to a character. But if you don't assign it to a character, rerunning will not use up a GM star replay.

Shadow Lodge

Just figured it's ben a while, so why not revisit this.

Shadow Lodge 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Southwest

What do you think has changed?

Grand Lodge

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Hum, I'm not sure that's true. If so, nice to know, though. I was under the impression you had to apply it immediately, and a more recent change allowed you to apply it to a 0XP character (getting a max of 500GP, 1XP, and 2PP). Something to look into just to know.

You said something along these lines twice, I just wanted to point out on one of the character threads Mike Brock said he had five characters, people kinda freaked and asked how it was possible. He said he'd never taken GM credit (or replay), so I'd assume it's legal. LINK

As for your question. I see no reason to open up replay to a wider range of levels. There are 12 (First Steps, We Be Goblins, Confirmation, Wounded Wisp, Thornkeep Accursed Halls, Emerald Spire 1, Godsmouth Heresy, Reign of Winter 1, Mummy's Mask 1, Crypt of the Everflame, Masters of the Fallen Fortress, Silverhex, and Murder's Mark) repeatables that can be done for credit currently. Another 1 or possibly 2 (depending on the quests that come out at GenCon look like, and the possibility of First Steps at some point being retired. It's possible to get 21 tables of credit (if my math is right) on evergreens without even repeating one. I know a GM who has a star purely on We Be Goblins and being an Overseer for specials locally.

I personally think I have played 1 non-evergreen at level one since my first character. I have 8 above level 2. I've re-run I believe exactly 1 scenario that wasn't an evergreen (and burned a star for credit due to extenuating circumstances - I would have done it without the star but I had filled out my expanded narrative boon (received in trade) this season to re-play Bonekeep then ended up running it instead on short notice due to an emergency - so I needed to use the recharge), it was We Be Goblins Free on FreeRPG day. That said, there are a number of scenarios I would happily re-run. There are also I few I wouldn't touch with a 10-ft pole, in fact there is one I've only ran and am avoiding playing. There are plenty of options out there for a GM to pick a few scenarios to get really good at, and still have the players to play them since they can replay them too. Replay is alive and well as it is.

The first major con I see is people hunting specific items. In 1-5s off the top of my head for example there is a certain season 1 with an incredibly useful alchemical remedy I would like for all my CORE characters, or a certain sword from season 4, or a shield from season 5. (One of those I know a player with 3 copies of already, player, GM, GM Star - with the opportunity to get two more in CORE) I'm not sure I want to see 20 of his characters with it. (Don't get me wrong its a good scenario and all, but it gets old and is something that has happened in other campaigns)

Next, GM getting replay for 1-5s in most communities doesn't really help that much. In a lot of places you'll run out of people who can play the scenario fairly quickly.

Third, it becomes an issue if someone wants to re-run a 1-5 (for some item, boon, the scenario itself) versus some who has played and now wants to run it (especially if there is a small population of players).

Honestly, the system in place currently work pretty darn well and the issues both seen and unforeseen in changing that don't seem to me to have enough upside potential to warrant them. Mind you I only have 50 tables of credit, but I know a GM with 250 and of one with nearly (if not already with) 600 tables that I've never heard complain about it. (Though the ones I've talked to all enjoyed expanded narrative as a boon, generally to play something again more often than run something again)

PS: I will say I'm a fan of the oft-proposed 3 scenarios a month instead of expanded replays. (But only if it didn't impact quality, as is I prefer two good to great scenarios over 3 mediocre to bad ones)

Dark Archive 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Muncie aka Dubgall

Opening up the "older" AP's for credit would also help out on the nothing to run for PFS. Issuing 3 scenarios a month would be a solid help with running out of playable things for PFS. I think PFS is the cash cow for Paizo. Lets keep it strong and vibrant instead of haveing people go to "Adventure League" for something to play

Shadow Lodge

Eric Brittain wrote:
What do you think has changed?

Nothing needs change. For the most part, I expect the same individuals that have already made up their minds one way or the other are not going to change their minds, but I did point out earlier I planned to revisit it after a few months. Maybe some factual based arguments for or against? New thoughts on the subject?


Before 3 scenarios a month start Paizo has to tighten up their quality control significantly. Personally I won't pay even $4 for ones as badly written and checked as Out of Anarchy.

As to GM replay for credit, I just don't care. All credit does is earn stars and stars don't matter that much to me. They are mostly bragging rights. If they didn't exist I would still run PFS.

In order for me to care GM stars would have to actually mean something more. Give me a discount on buying scenarios or something.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps Subscriber
Jessex wrote:

Before 3 scenarios a month start Paizo has to tighten up their quality control significantly. Personally I won't pay even $4 for ones as badly written and checked as Out of Anarchy.

As to GM replay for credit, I just don't care. All credit does is earn stars and stars don't matter that much to me. They are mostly bragging rights. If they didn't exist I would still run PFS.

In order for me to care GM stars would have to actually mean something more. Give me a discount on buying scenarios or something.

There are several things tied to GM Stars currently.

1: GM Credit under discussion is chronicles for running to be applied to a PC. That credit is still one per adventure per play mode, with the ability to claim an additional 1..5 for your stars, and the additional ability to use Expanded Narrative to claim an additional 1..5 for stars for GMing more games in a season.

2: Stars are also the access gate for running Serpent's Rise and True Dragons of Absalom after this GenCon. Serpent's Rise is a lot of fun to run, and I have high hopes for True Dragons.

3: There is the +Stars on rerolls benefit.

4: There is the GM Star Boon chronicle, with some interesting flavor options available on it.


1) Aren't the GM's with lots of stars also the ones who say they rarely get to play? So what good does more chronicles do you?

2) 4 stars is so far away for most GM's that that is simply irrelevant. BTW replay still isn't needed to reach 4 stars. There are about 200 PFS scenarios, more than enough to get 4 stars without running any modules or AP's.

3) & 4) trivial.

The Exchange 5/5

Jessex wrote:

1) Aren't the GM's with lots of stars also the ones who say they rarely get to play? So what good does more chronicles do you?

2) 4 stars is so far away for most GM's that that is simply irrelevant. BTW replay still isn't needed to reach 4 stars. There are about 200 PFS scenarios, more than enough to get 4 stars without running any modules or AP's.

3) & 4) trivial.

1) hi. 4 stars here. In PFS i play more than I judge. I don't really NEED more CRs - but I really use the more replays ... Burned thru my four playing already...

2) 3 stars is only 60 games judged, (at most, some count as more than one game). Easily to do in 2 years... And I've seen someone do five stars in under a year... But you know ONE STAR is only 10 games judged (or 5 We Be Goblins) which most people who judge even a little will do in a year or two...

3) has saved my PC more than once - I've seen one star make a difference on a re rolled save ....

4) I like it

Shadow Lodge

1.) Part of the reason I was thinking about this was based on a discussion I had about DM's with favorite scenarios to run. A lot of us have favorite scenarios that the more we run them, the more we are able to weed out the issues, make the NPCs a little more interesting, and make the experience more fun for everyone. So, part of the idea was that it would benefit everyone to help encourage DM's to master a few scenarios (moreso than how it currently works) by helping to incentivize them for doing so.

2.) Off all the benefits, I think getting extra access is probably the one I find most appealing as an extra reward. I'd run games without it, but still this is probably the one I like the most.

3.) I'd say, as I DM more often than I play, probably about 80% of the time I reserve this to save characters from death or a condition that will remove them from play for a while. It's nice for that, but I get my Reroll from things I've purchased. The +1-+3 is pretty irrelevant for the uncommon personal use. It's the reroll itself that's the good part, and that has nothing to do with GM Stars. Something that's also worth noting, simply having DM Stars does not give you a free reroll. You need to have one of the products to get the free reroll, and then if you have DM Stars, you get an additional bonus.

4.) I've had this from the start and never once felt any need to use it on any character. It's just, well it doesn't do much for the divine classes I mostly play.


I would say that replay to GM the same "favorite" scenarios multiple times would mostly be boon farming and I'm fairly sure that is the last thing Paizo wants. As it stands nothing prevents you from running the same scenario multiple times, you simply don't get credit for it. If you really like it and not the chronicle sheet that goes with it there really shouldn't be a problem.

51 to 79 of 79 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Proposition Idea / Thought Exercise All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in GM Discussion