|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was thinking, why not make all 1-5th level (and 1st-7th for some older scenarios) scenarios open for infinite DM credit "replay". The idea is, that the lowest Tier is generally the most commonly run Tier, as more new players join in different groups. I personally don't mind running something I've already gotten credit for, so this is really more of an attempt to garner thoughts, though sometimes it does get annoying trying to remember if I've run something or just prepped it, did I play it and run, which character, etc. . .).
I've also noticed, on my part, that the more I run a scenario, the more he players tend to enjoy it, as I have more experience with things, a little more willing to make on the spot calls, knowing what that might lead to down the road, and for the multi-part scenarios, or those that lead into others, it makes it easier to blend the experience in together.
Another thing is that there are a lot of requested scenarios, and sometimes it's harder to find a DM to run them, especially for a new crowd coming into the scene, (home games or games store). So the idea is that if all of the low tier games allowed the GM to still get credit, while also getting better at running some scenarios and thus making the game that much better for the players, it might help to make more GM's willing to run more games.
Something I have encountered is that when it comes down to a situation where it would really be better to split a table into two groups, but not required, a lot of the time other possible DM's would rather play and get credit rather than DM and not get credit, (both because everyone wants to play, but also because for smaller groups, probably between 8ish to maybe 20ish people), it can start to create a gap where the various player's levels just don't match up, which begins to cause a problem with being actually able to play at a table with other players.
So, a few assumptions about what I mean with "all 1-5th level (and 1st-7th for some older scenarios) scenarios open for infinite DM credit "replay"."
This would only apply to the GM who ran, not be infinite credit for everyone. You can still not apply it to a character that already has either Player or GM Credit for that scenario. Like normal, the DM would get whatever Sub Tier would normally apply, but, in the cases of the 1-7 Tier Scenarios, the infinite credit can only be applied to a Character between 1st and 4-th level. Sort of like the 1st-2nd Tier games, where it's infinitely replayable by 1st level characters, but only once for a 2nd level character, you can only get credit for early levels, as the point to promote more DMs and games of the 1st - 5th ish level play (or 1st - 4th). This would not apply to Specials, Exclusives, Modules, and scenarios that already have their own rules for Replay. And this would not be retroactive, but (hypothetically) start at a specific date and then continue on from there.
Thoughts?
|
|
I like the idea of being rewarded for spending time to prepare a scenario for people and spending the time and effort to run one. I won't re-GM any of the scenarios that I have already ran because I have so many to run still, but I'm also not sure I will re-GM if I run out. Will probably just keep pace with the new releases if/when I get to that point.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
It would certainly be nice to get credit on an alt for re-running scenarios, but I'm not consumed with the desire. Re-running does count towards getting GM starts as far as I know, so there is some vanity reward there.
I haven't re-run any scenarios yet, although I have no objection to it, if it's convenient; I've already prepared them so it's easy to bring one as a backup game in case of too many players showing up. I've run the Confirmation several times now though and it is indeed a lot of fun seeing people do things differently.
But a few more evergreen scenarios with 2PP would certainly be nice, yeah.
|
|
I disagree.
You can look up any argument for or against replay. The overriding anecdotal evidence is that unlimited replay has actually hindered and/or ended other organized play campaigns.
The same can be said for unlimited GM credit.
Can you elaborate on this more? I was really looking more for the reasons why or why not rather than yes or no.
|
|
I agree with Andrew. There is nothing stopping a GM from rerunning a scenario multiple times. Watching how different groups handle the same challenge is a pretty big reward, more so than GM credit. If it is credit you are after, give Paizo a couple bucks and buy a new scenario.
For me, we have plenty of scenarios. It more that many times we get new players in, usually one or two at a time, and we are already running low on games we can run. But, I've also rerun thing plenty of times. I tend to buy most of the scenarios as they come out, so that's not an issue. $2.99 to $3.99 US every other weekish is not bad. But, that all being said, I was more looking for people's views for and against, and specifically the reasons for those views.
|
|
I haven't re-run any scenarios yet, although I have no objection to it, if it's convenient; I've already prepared them so it's easy to bring one as a backup game in case of too many players showing up.
I could possibly see this leading to an odd downside, (not you, just the circumstance), in where some GM's might be just want to run a few scenarios over and over. That in itself might not be bad, but it might cut down a bit in how many other scenarios are offered for play, or lead to some specific scenario's being cherry picked for what they offer.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I haven't re-run any scenarios yet, although I have no objection to it, if it's convenient; I've already prepared them so it's easy to bring one as a backup game in case of too many players showing up.I could possibly see this leading to an odd downside, (not you, just the circumstance), in where some GM's might be just want to run a few scenarios over and over. That in itself might not be bad, but it might cut down a bit in how many other scenarios are offered for play, or lead to some specific scenario's being cherry picked for what they offer.
That's why I think it's good that most scenarios can't be re-run for credit.
I'll still re-run things now and then, because some are just cool and you want to share them with friends you know will appreciate those specific ones. And they're useful if you have to run something with little time to prepare something new. I don't like running cold.
But at the same time I'm also looking for new things to run.
|
|
Devil's Advocate, it might help to take a step back and define the problem you're hoping to solve. If I'm reading your posts correctly, the underlying questions are A) "Would the ability to rerun a scenario for GM credit impact what scenarios GMs would be willing to run?" and B) "If so, do we want to allow multiple GM credits to encourage GMs to rerun scenarios they normally would not?"
For question A, we actually have some data that could potentially tell us how much impact it might be having: Since GMs already can get credit multiple times for running replayable scenarios and modules, we could try to look at how many times GMs have rerun the replayable scenarios vs. rerun the non-replyable scenarios. We could then compare that to how many times players in the area have replayed those same scenarios.
Here's my theory:
Outcome 1: If we see that GMs are rerunning the replayable scenarios at about the same rate as the non-replayable scenarios, then the ability to getting credit for re-running a scenario is probably not having that high an impact on the GMs as they decide what to run.
Outcome 2: If we see that GMs are rerunning the replayable scenarios at a much higher rate but there are not a lot players replaying those same scenarios, that probably indicates that GMs are running the same scenarios multiple times in response to player request.
Outcome 3: If we see that GMs are rerunning the replayable scenarios at a much higher rate combined with a high rate of players replaying those same scenarios, that might indicate that GMs are focusing on running the scenarios they can get credit for and essentially "forcing" players to replay those same scenarios. (Note: I said "might"--there can be several other reasons, like the GM hasn't had time to prepare another scenario, it was the only scenario everyone could play, etc.)
If we see Outcome 3, then we should definitely move on to discuss question B.
If we see Outcome 1 or 2 or we can't get the data to check for something like this, then we'll have to rely on self-reported attitudes from GMs and impressions from players or coordinators. In that case, I would start a new thread with question A: "Would you be more willing to rerun a scenario if you could get credit for multiple times?"
Then move on from there.
PS:
There's certainly nothing wrong with considering possible mechanisms or schemes of allowing GMs to rerun scenarios for credit, but unless there's an visible issue or a known problem to be solved, it will probably be all theorycrafting.
|
I can't speak for all 4 and 5 star GMs, so I'll give you my perspective.
When I first started GM'ing for Pathfinder Society back in May of 2011, I was assigning GM credit to my primary character (except for the scenario I played with that character). Then at Gen Con 2011, I got my 1st star by running First Steps Part 1 and 2 eight times between them. I assigned those credits to 4 new characters.
I have roughly 140 play credits and roughly 192 GM credits.
I have a Druid that I started at 5th level due to GM credits. He is now 14th level, and I would wager I played roughly half the scenarios leading up to 14th level.
I have a Fighter/Rogue who is 2 scenarios from 11th level on slow track. I had played him a total of 4 times prior to 10th level.
I played a Bard at Gen Con this year, and level 7.2. All GM credit.
I have enough Tier 1-5 credit that I could create 2 or 3 more level 2 characters if I wanted to.
I have enough Tier 3-11 credit that once my GM Credit dump character reaches 7th level, he will immediately become 11th level. This might happen all through GM credit, as having too many level 2 characters doesn't make sense.
I only have one character, who is currently 9th level, that has zero GM credit assigned.
At a certain point, assigning GM credit just isn't worth it anymore. I want to actually play my characters.
If you seem to be getting the same scenario assigned over and over, you might ask your coordinator to let you run something different. I know I would.
I guess what I'm saying is, GM credit is nice for when you have 10 or 20 credits to spread out amongst your various characters.
GM Credit is nice so you never have to play a brand new 1st level character and risk their one-shot death to that great-axe crit.
GM Credit is nice when you want a certain scenario on a certain character to finish out a trilogy or for a boon or whatever, but can't quite seem to play it for whatever reason.
But at some point, GM credit becomes boring.
Asking for more GM credit won't actually solve the problem you are trying to solve, because then you create a new problem. Too much GM credit.
|
|
I can't speak for all 4 and 5 star GMs, so I'll give you my perspective.
When I first started GM'ing for Pathfinder Society back in May of 2011, I was assigning GM credit to my primary character (except for the scenario I played with that character). Then at Gen Con 2011, I got my 1st star by running First Steps Part 1 and 2 eight times between them. I assigned those credits to 4 new characters.
I have roughly 140 play credits and roughly 192 GM credits.
I have a Druid that I started at 5th level due to GM credits. He is now 14th level, and I would wager I played roughly half the scenarios leading up to 14th level.
I have a Fighter/Rogue who is 2 scenarios from 11th level on slow track. I had played him a total of 4 times prior to 10th level.
I played a Bard at Gen Con this year, and level 7.2. All GM credit.
I have enough Tier 1-5 credit that I could create 2 or 3 more level 2 characters if I wanted to.
I have enough Tier 3-11 credit that once my GM Credit dump character reaches 7th level, he will immediately become 11th level. This might happen all through GM credit, as having too many level 2 characters doesn't make sense.
I only have one character, who is currently 9th level, that has zero GM credit assigned.
At a certain point, assigning GM credit just isn't worth it anymore. I want to actually play my characters.
If you seem to be getting the same scenario assigned over and over, you might ask your coordinator to let you run something different. I know I would.
I guess what I'm saying is, GM credit is nice for when you have 10 or 20 credits to spread out amongst your various characters.
GM Credit is nice so you never have to play a brand new 1st level character and risk their one-shot death to that great-axe crit.
GM Credit is nice when you want a certain scenario on a certain character to finish out a trilogy or for a boon or whatever, but can't quite seem to play it for whatever reason.
But at some point, GM credit becomes boring.
Asking for more GM credit...
Not really sure where people are getting the idea I want more GM credit really. I don't. Like you, I have plenty of characters, many with plenty of levels on purely GM Credit. I run a weekly game and also plenty of online games. I don't really have a problem, myself, but was more looking at the ups and downsides of this, as a completely hypothetical situation, hence posting as Devil's Advocate, and trying to point out that this is not some sort of poll or anything.
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.
Again, trying to just see the different views for and against. I can see the money, buying scenarios/modules side of it, but, I can also see it being just as likely that this might increase some people's purchasing of scenarios, too. So, I don't know. Between myself and a few of the regulars I play with in homes and stores, we already have nearly everything, and it's perfectly fine to share scenarios for running them, so from my perspective, it's not a huge deal, one way or the other.
|
|
Maybe I can rephrase it a bit. I can see plenty of reasons that making all lower tier scenarios, (well, non-specials and the like) grant infinite credit to DM's that run it. Many I posted above in the original, (and interested in hearing others, don't get me wrong).
But what would be some of the actual possible or foreseeable downsides if this where to happen? Not so much that you like or dislike the idea, but why? Why would it be a good or bad thing?
*Possibly a money issue.
*Someone mentioned it's bad for organized play. How? Why? Based on what?
* ?
|
My problem with the idea is that suddenly, the campaign staff has to be more careful about what boons/equipment it puts on 1-5 chronicles. If something is too powerful to be on every character a person has, then it won't be on the chronicle. And then we have a situation where we get less cool boons/equipment for 1-5s.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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 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.
Andrew, I agree with your argument overall, but I think you are mis-representing the opposite argument here. The point is that it wouldn't be running cold if the GM in question could pull out "the thing I ran last week" and run it again.
The counter-counter-argument is that there is nothing stopping GMs from doing this already. I have even done it myself, and I have not even GMed that many sessions to the point where I am overwhelmed with GM credits. For me, the advantage of not having to prep a completely new thing is enough of a positive to outweigh that I cannot assign credit to one of my characters for the second run through.
|
|
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 with sending people home ever if you can do anythign to avoid it. Sending people home is very unwelcoming and make people disguntled. I would advice having an easy back up scenario always ready for new players. Such as we be goblins(I ran this 3 weeks in a row because of poor prep).
infact I would argue a persont hat understands they are running something cold is better than sendingpeople home.
The worst games I played was DMs fully prepared. I never had a bad game of an unprepared DM.
|
|
I would argue that this is not evidence that GM prep is bad.
GM prep is great
GM not prepping is very badsending people home is the worst option
that is my point
My last line was to denote not prepping does not make the experience worhtless. Wasting my gas money and time showing and being dismissed will. A fully prepped DM cheating will as well.
|
|
Hold up a sec. Sending anyone home wasnt even a part of the example. Where did that come in?
The example was, and its just an example, that with all players in, it makes two, (or however many really) tables maxed out, or close to. That is to say there are 12 - 14 players and two tables. Its legal to play, but it would probably be better for everyone to make a 3rd table so that everyone gets more spotlight and fun, and combats are challenging.
No need to turn anyone away, but it would really be better to have an extra GM.
|
|
Let's list out some pros and cons:Pros for GM credit, especially repeated credit
•Incentivizes GMs, especially experienced GMs, to run more games•The more often you GM a scenario, the better you get at it.
•Allows GMs to bypass those annoying and dangerous low levels. (Don't want to lose that Rat Folk boon to a lucky crit? Have a concept for a Magus that's pretty much unplayable until 4th or 5th level? etc.)
•Makes scheduling easier if you don't have to worry about avoiding duplicate scenarios for your GMs as well as your players.
•Makes it easier for GMs to keep their characters up with the pack, especially when you're re-running scenarios for new players that your experienced players have already played through for the second or later wave of new players.
•GMs don't have to be as strategic about where to apply credits, if they apply them now, they'll still be available later if a character really needs it. (I don't want 15 characters with 1 chronicle on them, or 5 level 2 characters that I've never played. But I might want to apply a chronicle to one character to bump him up to level 5 so he can play in a 5-9 a week later some day but, if I've already run that scenario, no joy.)
Cons for GM credit, especially repeated credit
•Unlimited replay is Bad, we know from experience.•Incentivizes GMs to farm specific scenarios rather than a broad range of scenarios. (Everybody knows that, after the first time you schedule a certain season 3 trilogy, you'll be inundated with requests to repeat it for at least 6 months.)
•GM credit gets boring: You're not playing your character but he's still advancing towards retirement.
•Paizo gets less money.
•GMs already get enough rewards from stars and the fun of seeing different groups solving the problems in different ways.
•GMs can choose not to take credit when they run a scenario, saving it for later when it would be more useful.
•Lack of repeated credit is only a constraint in a small set of circumstances: GMs who have run a LOT of scenarios, scenarios with boons, venues that only run a subset of all available scenarios.
Some of these are paradoxical or resolve themselves:
•GMs get better with practice|Replay is Bad: First, we have to ask, why is replay bad? Players can spoil plots, or hang back too much in an attempt to not spoil the plot. That's not a problem for the GM, though, in fact the opposite is the case. I don't find this persuasive as applied to GMs in general. GMs can get bored of scenarios and just phone them in, but that's an individual issue and certainly organizers should be able to handle that along with other problematic GMs.
Another problem is farming for gear or boons. I never experienced Living Greyhawk, so I don't know the havoc it caused. But again, from the GM's perspective, we already suggest GMing for exactly this purpose. How many threads asking for a list of boons are answered by "if you want it on a specific character, just GM it?" Frankly, though, I have no idea how much of a problem this would be if there were unlimited credit allowed for GMing it, since we effectively have unlimited runs available due to multiple players potentially wanting to GM something for a boon. I think this would boil down to an individual issue again.
•GM credit allows you to level a character past the boring spots|GM credit gets boring after a while. This boils down to personal preference. Is it more boring to you to play through level 1 on a character that can't really do anything, or is it more boring to have characters spring into full bloom halfway through their career? Limiting unlimited credit to tier 1-5 scenarios addresses this somewhat, but I think the deciding factor really should be "Who am I to tell you what you find more boring?"
Interesting. I'm still not entirely sure about "•Unlimited replay is Bad, we know from experience." How is this based and what is it based on? Is this just your opinion? From another game? I'm actually extremely interested in learning. I think I have asked 3 or 4 times already with no answer. There are only a handful, really, of examples in PFS, and well, they tend to be, as far as I know, the absolute most played and purchased scenarios and modules out there, (even after discounting that most of them have been free).
•GMs have to be careful about taking/wasting credits|Gms can choose not to take credit when they run a scenario. Unless I misremember the Guide to Organized Play, the latter really resolves the problem. If you don't have a character that you want to apply this specific chronicle to at this time, then just don't take the chronicle and you can pick it up the next time you run it. I've almost completely stopped taking chronicles unless I have a specific use for one: The last chronicle I took was in August in order to bump a character up to level 7 so he would be eligible for the 7-11 I was scheduled to play in the next week.
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.
All that being said, I think the last con really is dominant in this situation: Lack of repeated credit is only a constraint in a small set of circumstances. I don't think the situation is generally broken, and this is one change that will only affect a small subset of people in specific circumstances. It's not an unquestionably positive change, so I think we should hold off on making any changes until the issue becomes more general. This, of course, it colored by my experiences so others might be having more problems with it that I've seen.
Again, interesting. I'm not assuming my opinion is the best one, just wanting to hear all the different sides. I'm personally unsure if such a rule would actually make Paizo more or less money overall, kind of thinking it would mostly be about the same, but still thing to consider.
Why limit this to Tier 1-5 scenarios?
or
If we adopt this, how long until someone wants to expand it to Tier 3-7 (and so on, and so on...)?We have unlimited for Tier 1-2. Tier 1-5 is the next (and would it also count for Tier 1-7) in line right?
Not sure if I should read this as "the sky is falling" or not. My intent in limiting the hypothetical proposition to 1-5/1-7 was because in my personal experience matches up well with the overwhelming majority of what I hear from others, that those or the Tiers most played and requested. 3rd -18th, not so much, though it's also a lot more difficult to find GM's for higher level play in general.
But, honestly, (and Im not actually "advocating" this, mind you), outside of specials and a certain 4 parter, what would rally be the harm in making everything grant GM credit each time you run it?
|
|
Interesting. I'm still not entirely sure about "•Unlimited replay is Bad, we know from experience." How is this based and what is it based on? Is this just your opinion? From another game? I'm actually extremely interested in learning. I think I have asked 3 or 4 times already with no answer. There are only a handful, really, of examples in PFS, and well, they tend to be, as far as I know, the absolute most played and purchased scenarios and modules out there, (even after discounting that most of them have been free).
Drogon is the best person to ask. This post talks about it, but I know he has expounded on it better in other places. Edit: Also here.
|
|
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.
Andrew, I agree with your argument overall, but I think you are mis-representing the opposite argument here. The point is that it wouldn't be running cold if the GM in question could pull out "the thing I ran last week" and run it again.
The counter-counter-argument is that there is nothing stopping GMs from doing this already. I have even done it myself, and I have not even GMed that many sessions to the point where I am overwhelmed with GM credits. For me, the advantage of not having to prep a completely new thing is enough of a positive to outweigh that I cannot assign credit to one of my characters for the second run through.
I've never had to send someone who just walks in to play (who's never played before) home.
Why?
Because we have a strict RSVP policy. We schedule what's running. You RSVP or don't as you wish (depending on whether you want to play that scenario, like/dislike the GM, like/dislike the other players being assigned that table, on whether you can play that scenario.)
So we don't have the problems of someone walking up and wanting to play, and not being able to if we don't have a GM run something cold (or un-re-prepared.)
If its at a Con, and things happen where a GM has to attend to an emergency, or we get some brand new people but all the tables are full, there are always exceptions.
But as a habit, we generally do not have a back-up GM ready to GM something just sorta prepared. It sets a bad precedent.
But then we have 20-30 tables of games every week. We have game days every day/evening but Monday and Friday, and Saturday has two game (one afternoon, one evening).
I know each region has their own issues and paradigm. So our system may not work 100% for other regions.
But I am of a firm belief that even considering allowing a GM to run something cold, is not a good idea. At all. And so I don't support it as a general rule.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The following opinion is colored by meeting a lot of GMs and coordinating PFS at a handful of conventions and for a weekly game day. I am by no means an expert.
GMs in Pathfinder Society shift along a continuum of stages, from "first scenario run" to "crusty coot." One of the earliest stages describes a GM with a handful of scenarios under her belt, each of which she's run once or twice. She's either at one star, or closing in on it. In that case, the GM-credit for stars isn't much of an incentive, because it feels like a long way off to get three or four stars and the rewards for one star aren't much to whoop and holler about. And she doesn't have the surplus of GM credit that Andrew describes.
It is for that GM, at that stage, that I think Devil's Advocate's proposition is most attractive. Right now, she is rewarded for GMing a brand new scenario, because she'll get a Chronicle sheet for it, over re-running a scenario she's already prepped and run. I have argued in the past, and reiterate here, that GMs should want to have a handful of scenarios they know very well -- as in, run multiple times, with reflection -- over more shallow experience -- prepped once, run once -- over a wider oeuvre. So, in that narrow range of GM growth, I'd say it's probably beneficial.
In almost every other circumstance, I'd have to join in the recommendation against it. It sets up a distinction between running a 1-5 scenario versus a 3-7 or higher (which still wouldn't give another Chronicle).
Right now, a 2-star GM can re-GM two games for Chronicles. (And if she has multiple copies of the "Extended Narrative" convention boon, that privilege resets every time she runs 3 games.) That seems satisfactory to me.
|
|
Right now, a 2-star GM can re-GM two games for Chronicles. (And if she has multiple copies of the "Extended Narrative" convention boon, that privilege resets every time she runs 3 games.) That seems satisfactory to me.
I agree with most everything you said in your post Chris. I think unlimited replay/rerun would be an overall negative for the campaign.
I just wanted to touch on the bit about the boon for rerun credit. Currently it is still limited to one boon per season, so at most a GM can open up 5 more chances to replay/rerun for credit per year.
|
|
It is for that GM, at that stage, that I think Devil's Advocate's proposition is most attractive. Right now, she is rewarded for GMing a brand new scenario, because she'll get a Chronicle sheet for it, over re-running a scenario she's already prepped and run. I have argued in the past, and reiterate here, that GMs should want to have a handful of scenarios they know very well -- as in, run multiple times, with reflection -- over more shallow experience -- prepped once, run once -- over a wider oeuvre. So, in that narrow range of GM growth, I'd say it's probably beneficial.
As a piece of anecdotal evidence I made it to *** (60games GMed) while GMing fewer than 5 scenarios a second time.
I also know of at least one venue locally that only schedules scenarios that one of their regular GMs hasn't GMed yet so that chronicle sheets can be awarded to all.
|
|
It is for that GM, at that stage, that I think Devil's Advocate's proposition is most attractive. Right now, she is rewarded for GMing a brand new scenario, because she'll get a Chronicle sheet for it, over re-running a scenario she's already prepped and run. I have argued in the past, and reiterate here, that GMs should want to have a handful of scenarios they know very well -- as in, run multiple times, with reflection -- over more shallow experience -- prepped once, run once -- over a wider oeuvre. So, in that narrow range of GM growth, I'd say it's probably beneficial.As a piece of anecdotal evidence I made it to *** (60games GMed) while GMing fewer than 5 scenarios a second time.
I also know of at least one venue locally that only schedules scenarios that one of their regular GMs hasn't GMed yet so that chronicle sheets can be awarded to all.
I find it silly that people refuse to DM ANY scenario more than once. If there is a scneario I can make entertaining I love running it over and over again. I do not enjoy the extra chronicle, but I do love sharign the great expereince with people.
|
|
Right now, a 2-star GM can re-GM two games for Chronicles. (And if she has multiple copies of the "Extended Narrative" convention boon, that privilege resets every time she runs 3 games.) That seems satisfactory to me.
Just wanted to point out that every single attempt to trade for one of those Boons has failed, and I haven't been lucky enough to get one myself. Most of my GM Star Replays are gone before I found out they would not renew. Not that it really matters, (to me) as I'm perfectly willing to rerun ones I've already run for no credit.
It does seem like the above mentioned, not receive GM credit until you want to idea is a bust, as you must in fact apply credit immediately, even if you don't have a character that can use it.
Rereading what you posted a few times, I do understand you are against it, but I really can't seem to find a single reason why it would be bad. In fact it seems kind of the opposite, that a lot of what you say is shows some of the benefits for the idea being a good move.
The only thing really was the idea of giving more favor to 1-5 scenarios over 3-7, but I'm not really seeing how that would be a problem. If the idea is to encourage more GMs, the assumption is there is already a game being run, (which may be 3-7 or 1-5, or 1-7, who knows). The only real factor then should be if the players have played it before or not. I just am not sure that one would equate to the other in any real way? On the other hand, as far as I have ever heard, 1-5th is by far the most requested area of play, which would probably be a much bigger factor than anything for favoring 1-5 over any other tier, but really doesn't have any impact on infinite GM credit. In games with random players, it's going to be purely on what the players want/need, where as in a home game style, infinite GM credit is going to go away pretty fast or the entire group is going to be making a lot of new characters just to play in that range.
I find it silly that people refuse to DM ANY scenario more than once. If there is a scneario I can make entertaining I love running it over and over again. I do not enjoy the extra chronicle, but I do love sharign the great expereince with people.
I'm actually not against it at all. I've done it plenty of time, and in fact just volunteer to do a few in the coming Game Day. Most of the time I do run, I actually go out of my way to ask what everyone wants to play, and really don't care if I've run it, played it, or not, myself.
I agree with most everything you said in your post Chris. I think unlimited replay/rerun would be an overall negative for the campaign.
How so? Honestly, I'm interested in hearing. and exploring this. Much more so by far than if someone does or does not like it, why would it be good or bad for the game? I keep hearing here that it would be bad, but no one really seems to have a reason why. That's doesn't really make them wrong, but it just doesn't really show anything.
|
|
Drogon is the best person to ask. This post talks about it, but I know he has expounded on it better in other places. Edit: Also here.
|
|
Drogon is the best person to ask. This post talks about it, but I know he has expounded on it better in other places. Edit: Also here.
I'm going to invite him over. Meant to PM them earlier, just forgot due to work. From what I did read, the focus of those threads tends to be purely about player replays, though, so not sure if it would really work or not.
:)
|
|
I would like to point out that player replay and GM reruns are two *totally* different things.
As for boon harvesting: Are there so many GMs that in the worst case scenario you would end up with "lots and lots" of characters with the same boon?
In my experience there simply aren't that many boons worth having. There are a few (and I do mean few) that are nice, but I wouldn't want an axebeak for every character.
Also, anecdotally, in my local area, the GM pool is at most 10% of the player pool.