Contributor
|
Ever since Anthony Li and I did our big Private Sanctuary Podcast episode about death and chatted about why dying especially taxing to a PFS player, I've been thinking a lot about ways to improve that aspect of organized play.
Well, as anyone who's ever listened to me on the Private Sanctuary Podcast or read my blog articles on the Know Direction Network knows, I have a VERY mechanical / rules-driven brain, and that initial idea of, "a way to make death less now-or-never in PFS" grew into something that tackles what I ultimately think is something that PFS is always trying to address: properly rewarding GMs for their service.
With that in mind, I'd like to introduce my GM Fame & Prestige system, which is designed to take the current rewarding systems in place for PFS GMs and expand them substantially so that GMs possess visible rewards for the time, energy, and resources they put into making the Pathfinder Society everything it is and will be.
What is GM Fame & Prestige?
In the PFS Roleplaying Guild, Fame and Prestige effectively serve two purposes: gating how a PFS character spends her wealth and providing a method for returning from the dead that doesn’t obliterate character wealth. These mechanics are essential to keeping organized play fun and balanced for players. GM Fame and Prestige serves a similar purpose; it is a system for rewarding the volunteers who spend their time and monetary resources to make the Pathfinder Society happen. Without GMs, there is no Pathfinder, and the people who perform this service for organized play deserve to be rewarded for it.
How is GM Fame & Prestige Different from GM Stars?
The Pathfinder Organized Play system already has a mechanic in place that acts similarly to GM Fame; the GM Star system. GMs earn stars based upon the number of tables that they have successfully run, and as a GM acquires stars the number of tables needed to progress to the next star increase. Possessing GM stars grants GMs three primary benefits: ability to run special, gated scenarios (such as Serpent’s Rise or True Dragons of Absolam), scenario replays, and bonuses on mercantile rerolls (rerolls gained from being in possession of select Pathfinder RPG products). Ultimately, the benefits gained from possessing GM stars are few and progress slowly and aren’t particularly visible to the players.
In contrast, GM Fame & Prestige would be devoted to rewarding GMs for their service both outside of the game and during play in a way that is meaningful to each individual GM, whether said GM was running the game or playing alongside other players.
How does the GM Fame & Prestige System Work?
The GM Fame & Prestige System would effectively be an expansion to the GM Star system. GM Stars would continue to be earned and functioned as they currently are, using the same “games run” threshold that currently exists. There is no reason to devalue the achievement of existing 5-Star GMs simply for the sake of a new rewards system.
The other half of the equation would be GM Prestige. Essentially, each time the GM runs an adventure, she would gain 1 GM Prestige associated with one faction of her choice. If the GM would gain a Chronicle Sheet from the game, the Prestige she gains must match the faction of the character that she applied her Chronicle Sheet to. Currently, this means that a GM would have seven different pools of Prestige. For most rewards (let’s call them Society Rewards for now), the differentiation between these different types of Prestige would be meaningless, but for others, the applications of the rewards would be different based upon the faction providing the GM Prestige.
- Resolving Death: If your character dies, you could spend GM Prestige instead of character prestige in order to pay for the life-returning magic at a rate of 2 character Prestige per GM Prestige that matches the character’s faction, or 1 to 1 if the GM Prestige doesn’t match the character’s faction.
- Resolving True Death: As above, but GM Prestige could be an effective means to allow players to work towards undoing permanent death for their characters. True resurrection allows the revival of any character that has been dead a minimum of 170 years, which is plenty of time for Organized Play. Given the cost of true resurrection, this would be a lengthy undertaking and ultimately a fitting reward for a dedicated individual.
- Unlocking New Races: One of the tricky points of PFS is, “How do we promote the core races while simultaneously allowing additional options for other players?” Giving races out at conventions is an awesome way of rewarding GMs who help at those events, but it does nothing to benefit GMs who are unable to participate in such gatherings. GM Prestige could handle that. Let’s say all of the zero-asterisk races were available to GMs through purchase with GM Prestige, costing an amount of Prestige based on the rarity of that race. For example, a gillman might be worth 5 GMPP because they’re native to Absolam, near the heart of the Pathfinder Society, while changelings might be worth 10 GMPP. (The exact races available can be changed; my personal suggestion would be to make Core Races from nations beyond the Inner Sea purchasable with GMPP, like kitsune for Tian Xia or skinwalkers for Arcadia.) Having a system like this also allows the PFS team to increase the value of the convention race boon; races like aasimar, tiefling, and others that are inherently more powerful or exotic can be the stuff of conventions while the more common options can belong to. For additional flavor, you could add the requirement that all GMPP spent needs to be from the same faction and the resulting character needs to belong to the faction that you used to pay for the race.
- Unlocking Advanced / Restriction Options: Some optional subsystems aren’t appropriate for the PFS because they bog down a game in inexperienced hands. But GMs with a high number of stars are the opposite of inexperienced, and so the option to allow them to spend Prestige to play with normally forbidden rules would be an interesting addition to the game. For example, perhaps a 4-Star GM could purchase the Called Shot ruled, or a 3-Star GM could spend Prestige to upgrade a named magical suit of armor, shield, or weapon. Perhaps the coveted “child character” aka Yoon modifications could also be a purchased option.
- Party Buffs / Abilities: The Faction Cards introduced the idea that players should be able to provide benefits to their parties simply by being present at the table, such as the Silver Crusade’s reduction to the cost of healing services. Perhaps GMs could spend Prestige to bring cool powers and abilities to the table to help their allies, similar to the Prestige Rewards in Ultimate Campaign. (Aka once per GM star you could give an ally a +2 on a role.) If you wanted to facilitate the concept of the GM as the storyteller rather than the antagonist, you could even allow such powers to function for any party that the GM runs a game for too.
- Expanded Narrative: GM PP would be a good way to allow GMs to replay (or rerun) scenarios. This would still be limited to a number of replays per season equal to your Stars and require the expenditure of GM PP to “recharge” the replays, so to speak.
F.A.Q.
How much GM PP do I get for running a module? Two; just as much as you would add to your GM rating to determine your stars
How Would you Track GM Fame & Prestige? You would print out a special chronicle sheet from Paizo.com. Unlike other chronicle sheets, this one would be watermarked with your player and account name.
(Assuming that I'll be answering questions after my editing lock-out retires for this post, check the comments below for additional FAQs.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of this is a good idea.
2 that aren't.
Unlocking races. It can be very difficult to get GM's for every table needed for a con. Every incentive available is needed. Race boons is one of the few that PFS offers.
It can be very difficult to get DM's period. If thats the reason for doing it at cons the same reasoning holds for gamedays.
Unlocking advanced/restricted options. The GM as a player might be fine with using that system if he always played in games with other players and GM's equally experienced but that will not be the case. Many of those options, and the ones most desired, would put the burden on other GM's with no guarantee that they would have any experience at all.
Definitely. Having a bunch of stars next to your name is no gaurantee against being a murderhobing munchkin, and some of those options are waay overpowered. (Gunslinger called shots to the head anyone?)
|
Contributor
|
It can be very difficult to get DM's period. If thats the reason for doing it at cons the same reasoning holds for gamedays.Some of this is a good idea.
2 that aren't.
Unlocking races. It can be very difficult to get GM's for every table needed for a con. Every incentive available is needed. Race boons is one of the few that PFS offers.
I agree, which is why my proposal is that only the most common races (from Golarion's perspective) would be available. For instance, the Dragon Empires core races (kitsune, wayang, and nagaji) would be purchasable with GM PP, as could the Garundi core races or the Arcadian core races. Things like aasimars and tieflings, however, would remain as convention boons.
Unlocking advanced/restricted options. The GM as a player might be fine with using that system if he always played in games with other players and GM's equally experienced but that will not be the case. Many of those options, and the ones most desired, would put the burden on other GM's with no guarantee that they would have any experience at all.Definitely. Having a bunch of stars next to your name is no gaurantee against being a murderhobing munchkin, and some of those options are waay overpowered.
I never suggested the unfettered addition of new systems without any sort of moderation or discussion (I would fully expect the VOs to decide which systems were appropriate), but I also think that your presumptions about many of those alternate systems are unfounded.
Gunslinger called shots to the head anyone?)
For example, called shots always resolve against regular AC, not touch AC. Gunslingers are no inherently better at making called shots than fighters. But that isn't the point of this thread.
Ultimately, this could also be a fun way to add things like background skills, stamina pools, and the Signature Skill feat. Small mechanical things that can help high-star GMs show off their dedication at the table.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like some of the thoughts presented here, but after several years of consideration and experience I am against the increase of GM rewards beyond what they are now. People say it is hard to get GMs, and that is a valid issue to be dealt with... I'll come back to that.
(I will say that there is a fundamental assumption built into my ideas: to me, a bad game is actually *worse* than no game at all. Just having a warm body there to click me through initiative and sign my Chronicle isn't sufficient for me - I hope that the GM will at least know the scenario and present it to the best of their ability - the same responsibility I put on myself as a player.)
In my experience, motivating GMs with in-game rewards is not a good thing in the long term. While it's true that there is no PFS without a GM, the wrong GM can destroy games very quickly, and also do lasting damage to your community. If a GM won't GM unless they are getting better loot than a player, you are preferentially choosing people who are primarily reward-motivated to be your GM.
It's fine to be reward-motivated: I was extremely motivated by GM stars, personally; for other people it's race boons or cool Chronicle items or whatever. GMs, though, need to also have the game experience as a driving motivation, or the whole table suffers. That motivation is an internal one, and often only comes to the fore when the Lodge is about to fall apart because no one is GMing.
This is why it's not a bad thing to have the occasional game day collapse for lack of willing GMs. If you need to bribe your GMs to participate by giving them more "loot" than a player, they're probably not going to do a great job anyway. You are just prolonging the inevitable, and preventing other folks from seeing the need for them to step up themselves.
|
In my opinion the biggest problem in PFS is how powerful some characters can get, especially when compared to other characters and to published materials.
Adding more power creep is a bad idea. I agree with Lamplighter that more powerful characters is a BAD incentive for GMs.
And, in my experience, the more GMing you do the less you care if a character actually dies because you usually have a stable of characters. And more experienced players tend to lose characters quite infrequently unless they're being deliberately played in dangerous ways.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion the biggest problem in PFS is how powerful some characters can get, especially when compared to other characters and to published materials.
Adding more power creep is a bad idea. I agree with Lamplighter that more powerful characters is a BAD incentive for GMs.
And, in my experience, the more GMing you do the less you care if a character actually dies because you usually have a stable of characters. And more experienced players tend to lose characters quite infrequently unless they're being deliberately played in dangerous ways.
Yes, but not all race choices are about power, not even the more exotic ones. Some people want to play an unusual race just to play a more unusual race, or to utilize that their race specific stuff.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will say that there is a fundamental assumption built into my ideas: to me, a bad game is actually *worse* than no game at all
How far do you normally travel to get to a game? It would need to be a spectacularly bad game to be worse than no game, much less no game after driving 45 minutes , getting a pizza and waiting for the game to go off.
I have had maybe one game I would consider that bad.
I am pretty sure I've had at least that many games where the reward has made enough DMs
... and i know that more DMs would make better games even if they're not very good, by cutting down on 7 player tables if nothing else.
You cannot judge an idea as "Well there are downsides to it, lets not do it". You need to consider the likely pros and cons. DMS SO bad you'd rather be home are pretty rare.
|
|
A) Bad game - 4+ hours locked into a table I really don't want to be at (whatever reason), burning a scenario I will never be able to play for the first time again, burning off one of the 33 games I might get with my PC...
B) No game - 4+ hours of looking around the venue, chatting with friends, maybe setting up a pick-up game of SOMETHING (First Steps even), having a leisurely meal with other gamers, working on my PCs with friends ("Hay, have I ever showed you my witch Auntie Baltwin?")... And getting to play the scenario at a later date,...
Your sensitivity level is inordinately high for a gamer.
|
|
How far do you normally travel to get to a game?
Good point... there are other fundamental assumptions to my opinion. One is that we've built up a Lodge that runs multiple games in multiple venues a week, within a 45 minute radius. If a game falls apart due to lack of a GM, there are likely other games nearby that same week (although maybe not that same night).
I have had multiple games that bad, which is made more significant by the fact that I only play about 10% or less of the time.
But again, I'm not looking at just the effect of that game - it's the long-term effect that matters more to me. So, if we have a pretty bad game with an unprepared GM, and I waste an evening... oh, well. But the two new players that tried PFS that night never come back, and by corollary never become PFS GMs.
pauljathome: that is another significant factor for some folks, some people don't want to prep for a game and have it end in the surprise round 5 times in a row and be done in an hour, or don't want to have to deal with those very powerful characters (which is really a player issue, not a character issue). Alas, this is a part of Organized Play that won't go away until the campaign is rebooted - and then, only until the new system puts out its equivalent "Ultimate X" books. The only way to prevent this level of power creep is to have a campaign background and character creation requirements that limit optimization of the system to something that the campaign can manage.
|
|
But again, I'm not looking at just the effect of that game - it's the long-term effect that matters more to me. So, if we have a pretty bad game with an unprepared GM, and I waste an evening... oh, well. But the two new players that tried PFS that night never come back, and by corollary never become PFS GMs.
But you're still looking at the games effects for your own venue without considering that your own venue has ways of dealing with it.
For a smaller venue the caparison isn't between "Pathfinder, its that game where the DM kinda mutters through looking at the page the whole time" and an awesome game, its a comparison between " that game where the DM kinda mutters through looking at the page the whole time" and "that game where you show up and nothing happens" or "that game where you're wedged in with 6 other people" That sets a much lower bar.
If you have multiple people dms in multiple venues you can pretty easily avoid putting new players with the new dm and if someone stays bad it will be a process of selection.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some of this is a good idea.
2 that aren't.
Unlocking races. It can be very difficult to get GM's for every table needed for a con. Every incentive available is needed. Race boons is one of the few that PFS offers.
It can be very difficult to get DM's period. If thats the reason for doing it at cons the same reasoning holds for gamedays.
I won't deny that GMing conventions is a time consuming and tiring process but in my opinion unless a location has a very stable group game days easily take more effort and bear more stress than an average convention.
Every time I come to these forums and see someone claiming that something can't be done because we need special things for conventions my desire to GM dies a little bit. It seems that nobody has even stopped to consider that current method of promoting conventions might actually be alienating some GMs.
I volunteered for four local conventions in 2015 but I continue to be on the fence on if I wish to continue the same level of support next year.
|
|
For a smaller venue the caparison isn't between "Pathfinder, its that game where the DM kinda mutters through looking at the page the whole time" and an awesome game, its a comparison between " that game where the DM kinda mutters through looking at the page the whole time" and "that game where you show up and nothing happens" or "that game where you're wedged in with 6 other people" That sets a much lower bar.
I would agree with you, if nothing could be done to influence the situation between games. (And I wasn't talking about that level of GMing: all good GMs start off as less good GMs. I meant more "that game where the GM just rolls dice, makes stuff up, and tells you you're dead," or "that game where it's over in half an hour because the GM doesn't read anything but stat blocks".)
But yes, a smaller venue has different issues. If you only have ten players in your whole area, you're not going to be able to do the same things someone with 450 players can do. But vice versa: if you have a group of ten, that shared community responsibility thing should carry more weight.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like some of the thoughts presented here,
It would be helpful if you noted what you liked instead of what you don't like. That might help us find some common ground.
but after several years of consideration and experience I am against the increase of GM rewards beyond what they are now. People say it is hard to get GMs, and that is a valid issue to be dealt with... I'll come back to that.
(I will say that there is a fundamental assumption built into my ideas: to me, a bad game is actually *worse* than no game at all. Just having a warm body there to click me through initiative and sign my Chronicle isn't sufficient for me - I hope that the GM will at least know the scenario and present it to the best of their ability - the same responsibility I put on myself as a player.)
In my experience, motivating GMs with in-game rewards is not a good thing in the long term. While it's true that there is no PFS without a GM, the wrong GM can destroy games very quickly, and also do lasting damage to your community. If a GM won't GM unless they are getting better loot than a player, you are preferentially choosing people who are primarily reward-motivated to be your GM.
It's fine to be reward-motivated: I was extremely motivated by GM stars, personally; for other people it's race boons or cool Chronicle items or whatever. GMs, though, need to also have the game experience as a driving motivation, or the whole table suffers. That motivation is an internal one, and often only comes to the fore when the Lodge is about to fall apart because no one is GMing.
This is why it's not a bad thing to have the occasional game day collapse for lack of willing GMs. If you need to bribe your GMs to participate by giving them more "loot" than a player, they're probably not going to do a great job anyway. You are just prolonging the inevitable, and preventing other folks from seeing the need for them to step up themselves.
There's a decent chance that what I'm about to say will offend you, and I apologize in advance. With that said, this is perhaps the most ego-ridden post that I have read in a long time. Your point isn't clearly constructed because you contradict yourself several times, but it seems to boil down to, "We can't be having the 'wrong' type of GM in our GMing pool because their 'wrongness' might ruin games." What the heck does "wrong GM" mean and who are you to determine what "wrongness" is? Different people enjoy different kinds of games, and as a result they enjoy different GMs.
For example, I've played with GMs who love embellishing roleplaying and I've played with GMs who roleplay only the bare minimum required by the scenario. People who love roleplaying often say, "I love GM Y because he lets me play my character more," but other people who enjoy combat or who value timeliness often say, "I prefer GM Z because he lets me do what I enjoy most," or "I prefer GM Z because she always ends the game like clockwork, which means I know I can plan my day around her games." None of these traits are bad, and encouraging more players to try GMing (even if its as a result of a rewards system) is likewise not bad. Having a larger stable of GMs helps to ensure a lack of burnout, for instance, and in the long run players who know the rules well enough to run are more competent playing the game, too.
Finally, no one starts "out of the box" as an amazing GM. People learn and grow with experience, and GMing for anyone can be intimidating, least of all a crowd of people who don't really have anything invested into your success. Having a rewards system could be enough of a motivator to help nudge someone into trying a gaming style that they wouldn't have otherwise tried, and that is GOOD for the longterm success of both Organized Play and the game as a whole.
|
Contributor
|
In my opinion the biggest problem in PFS is how powerful some characters can get, especially when compared to other characters and to published materials.
Adding more power creep is a bad idea. I agree with Lamplighter that more powerful characters is a BAD incentive for GMs.
I'm not sure if this is in reference to unlocking races or unlocking alternate subsystems. I'm going to write two different responses tailored at each.
Races: In my experience (which is rather substantial), no race is more powerful than human overall. There are cases where one race can be better in a niche build (like kitsune sorcerers or dwarf geokineticists), but generally speaking humans have the best racial traits (extra selections from two limited-availability resources and a flexible ability score bonus) and the best favored class options. Allowing GMs to make more diverse characters by allowing them to make characters of other Core Races is not going to create substantially more powerful characters.
Alternate Systems: I left my ballpark idea with this open so it could be expanded upon but in the manner that I envision it, the VOs would go through and designate what alternate systems were available and what option from each system would be available. Perhaps they would only be available on a per-character basis. I was thinking of the GM Star Boons when I wrote this; like the ability to take a handful of racial spells and make them available to all of your characters and whatnot. Minor benefits that would still allow players to see, "Whoa, this person has some PFS Clout."
And, in my experience, the more GMing you do the less you care if a character actually dies because you usually have a stable of characters. And more experienced players tend to lose characters quite infrequently unless they're being deliberately played in dangerous ways.
I disagree with this, personally. I'm quite attached to all of my characters. Also, this point doesn't have much clout within the overall discussion of a GM Reward system.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I won't deny that GMing conventions is a time consuming and tiring process but in my opinion unless a location has a very stable group game days easily take more effort and bear more stress than an average convention.
Every time I come to these forums and see someone claiming that something can't be done because we need special things for conventions my desire to GM dies a little bit. It seems that nobody has even stopped to consider that current method of promoting conventions might actually be alienating some GMs.
I volunteered for four local conventions in 2015 but I continue to be on the fence on if I wish to continue the same level of support next year.
I agree with this; its sort of the fundamental idea behind why I proposed the GM Fame & Prestige system to begin with.
When you say that one group of GMs deserves special treatment over another for their time, effort, and commitment, the result is pretty alienating. Yes, convention GMs need to pay for travel, food, and sometimes lodging and they deserve thanks for that. But regular store GMs have their own challenges ahead of them. Its a minimum of 30 minutes of driving to wherever I need to run as a GM, and unlike a convention GM I'm usually expected to purchase my own scenarios and provide my own resources for the game.
Again, my point isn't that convention GMs and store GMs make the same sacrifices and in the same capacity. (They don't.) What I am trying to say is that the current system of rewarding one very small percentage of GMs could be expanded to the benefit of Organized Play as a collective. Because most organized play doesn't happen at a convention.
|
|
I would agree with you, if nothing could be done to influence the situation between games. (And I wasn't talking about that level of GMing: all good GMs start off as less good GMs. I meant more "that game where the GM just rolls dice, makes stuff up, and tells you you're dead," or "that game where it's over in half an hour because the GM doesn't read anything but stat blocks".)
I have never seen Dming that bad. I cannot see the point in building policy around something that rare that could easily be taken care of locally.
But vice versa: if you have a group of ten, that shared community responsibility thing should carry more weight.
Nice in theory but doesn't always hold up in practice.
|
|
I like this idea for a system of purchasable rewards for GMs.
I can appreciate the concern that it might cause people to GM for the wrong reasons. But lets say the least expensive thing on the list cost , for aguments sake, 20 GM prestige, then I don't see players who are otherwise uninterested in GMing putting themselves through 80+ hours of rough GMing for a boon that offers you a choice of raising a long dead character or a race boon.
A rough idea of where I'd like to see these costs, and what could be done with them.
10: Expanded narrative boon
10: Additional GM star reward chronicle
20: True Resurrection for any PC
50: Changeling, Gillmen, Grippli, Samsaran, Suli, Vanara, Vishkanya
75: Strix (can only be assigned to an unplayed character of 5th level or higher).
100: Goblin, Lizardfolk, Gathlain, Wyrwood, Wyvaran
???: Other imaginative boons (like alternative systems, party buffs and the likes as mentioned by Alex).
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I think this idea is worth exploring. Here are some things I would/wouldn't do;
* The first shiny thing should be within easy reach; maybe even just 5 games GMed. The idea here is to tempt people into GMing the first few games. It should be something you can add to a character, or for a new character, not something to patch up a nasty condition; we're trying to sell this to people as a quickly achievable thing to work towards.
* Rewards should be different from the ones offered at cons. If races are unlocked, not the same ones as on con boons.
* Some of the rewards at each "distance" of achievability could be stuff the GM could also give to other people; this is nice both for people who GM much more than they play, and to allow frequent GMs to also reward players for doing cool stuff.
* There's lots of design space for cool rewards that don't actually provide a lot of power but are still a nice badge of honor. For example, a wayfinder that you can only get through this boon, that provides two cantrips (Light and Stabilize, for example).
|
|
At the same time, any reward you DO give cannot be too unbalancing. I have seen another campaign do the slow death-spiral for fifteen years because the GMs get 'toys' and 'more toys' (because there wasn't a proper compensation program in place, there was a lot more 'nod and wink' going on) and suddenly *players* can feel like all they are is warm bodies filling four hours of time for a GM to get their points.
And then when said GMs DO actually sit down at a table to play, the weight that they bring mechanically is... overwhelming. So balance *is* CRUCIAL in any discussion that is had.
|
|
What about just making boon distribution automatic via paizo.com PM, and giving progress towards the standard convention GM and player boons to everyone, including home games, at a rate based on the size of the event.
My proposal:
Each time you GM a scenario you get 5 points towards a boon per table reported under the same event that day. As such if you GM 2 tables at a convention where there are 10 tables being run that day, you'd get 100 points towards a boon. Each time you play in a scenario you get 1 point towards a boon per table reported in the same manner. Every 100 points you get awarded a boon.
This would accomplish a few things. First off, it would break down the wall between convention play and home play as far as access to unique races are concerned, but still rewards convention GMs and Players for attending such events. Two: It would reduce the burden on event coordinators needing to print out and sign truckloads of player boons at the convention to try to ration out since they would be automatically watermarked and granted. Three: If resurrection boons are included in the mix it would provide a method of returning a character to the field without wiping out their WBL. Four: By tying the rewards to reported scenarios it creates more incentive for timely and accurate reporting.
This is a complete shot from the hip, but it seems like it could conceivably meet the goal of the proposal above in a more unified system that requires less homework on the part of GMs and players.
|
|
What if the rewards for gming were things that made you a better gm? I'm at lunch so I can't think of any right now, but it might be worth thinking about.
That could QUICKLY turn into a pricing war.
GM A has a part-time job that pays insanely, has plenty of 'free time' and 'money' to buy a lot of things in the way of props/maps/etc to make play experience fun and easy for their players. People want to play with this GM, so they constantly vie for the privilege, and the GM always gets 'high' marks.
GM B has a full-time job that pays poorly, has a lot of bills to pay (may even be GMing to get a badge to get into the convention), can't afford maps/props/etc to make things fun and easy for their players, is exhausted half the time they GM because of mandatory scheduling, and gets handed the 'bad/overflow' tables as a result. Because of this, people always give 'low' marks.
At both tables, though, the mechanics may be spot-on, the scenarios nearly identical.
If you effectively penalize the GM that works more outside of game, you'll quickly drive away GMs that are trying to help out, but can't make a secondary profession of GMing.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Nebraska—Omaha
|
What if the rewards for gming were things that made you a better gm? I'm at lunch so I can't think of any right now, but it might be worth thinking about.That could QUICKLY turn into a pricing war.
GM A has a part-time job that pays insanely, has plenty of 'free time' and 'money' to buy a lot of things in the way of props/maps/etc to make play experience fun and easy for their players. People want to play with this GM, so they constantly vie for the privilege, and the GM always gets 'high' marks.
GM B has a full-time job that pays poorly, has a lot of bills to pay (may even be GMing to get a badge to get into the convention), can't afford maps/props/etc to make things fun and easy for their players, is exhausted half the time they GM because of mandatory scheduling, and gets handed the 'bad/overflow' tables as a result. Because of this, people always give 'low' marks.
At both tables, though, the mechanics may be spot-on, the scenarios nearly identical.
If you effectively penalize the GM that works more outside of game, you'll quickly drive away GMs that are trying to help out, but can't make a secondary profession of GMing.
I don't think you understood that suggestion. Walter was saying that GMs would get the things that make you a better GM as rewards (flip-mats, minis, condition cards, initiative trackers), not that better GMs would get more rewards.
Not sure what kinds of boon-like things help make a GM more fun to play with.
|
Contributor
|
I always wonder when I see these threads. People who GM regularly never seem to start them. Food for thought.
Actually, I mostly GM for my own players at home. I do a bit of PFS GMing on the side when I can, but that isn't as often as I'd like because I don't have time to adequately prep scenarios on a regular basis. It happens when you're a freelancer, 3PP publisher, blogger, and podcast host I'm afraid.
That said, just because I don't get to personally GM as much as I'd like to doesn't mean that my friends, who work their butts off so I can have a fun game to relax at once a week, don't deserve rewards for their time, effort, and energy.
|
Contributor
|
At the same time, any reward you DO give cannot be too unbalancing. I have seen another campaign do the slow death-spiral for fifteen years because the GMs get 'toys' and 'more toys' (because there wasn't a proper compensation program in place, there was a lot more 'nod and wink' going on) and suddenly *players* can feel like all they are is warm bodies filling four hours of time for a GM to get their points.
And then when said GMs DO actually sit down at a table to play, the weight that they bring mechanically is... overwhelming. So balance *is* CRUCIAL in any discussion that is had.
I agree with this.
Generally speaking, races are typically okay. The only races that are going to make big splashes in PFS are the ones that aren't humanoids/native outsiders, like androids, ghorans, wyvarans, and wyrwoods.
|
Contributor
|
What about just making boon distribution automatic via paizo.com PM, and giving progress towards the standard convention GM and player boons to everyone, including home games, at a rate based on the size of the event.
My proposal:
Each time you GM a scenario you get 5 points towards a boon per table reported under the same event that day. As such if you GM 2 tables at a convention where there are 10 tables being run that day, you'd get 100 points towards a boon. Each time you play in a scenario you get 1 point towards a boon per table reported in the same manner. Every 100 points you get awarded a boon.This would accomplish a few things. First off, it would break down the wall between convention play and home play as far as access to unique races are concerned, but still rewards convention GMs and Players for attending such events. Two: It would reduce the burden on event coordinators needing to print out and sign truckloads of player boons at the convention to try to ration out since they would be automatically watermarked and granted. Three: If resurrection boons are included in the mix it would provide a method of returning a character to the field without wiping out their WBL. Four: By tying the rewards to reported scenarios it creates more incentive for timely and accurate reporting.
This is a complete shot from the hip, but it seems like it could conceivably meet the goal of the proposal above in a more unified system that requires less homework on the part of GMs and players.
I thought about this when I was first brainstorming my system, and the general consensus that I came up with was that A) this would be a REAL pain in the butt to moderate from the Organized Play end and B) part of the idea is to not invalidate the current rewards systems that are in place. As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I think that Con GMs SHOULD get something sweet for their assistance and support, so I don't think that allowing easy access to Con boons is the answer. This needs to be a system that's separated from the Con Boon system or else we're going to be getting schisms and general negativity.
|
Contributor
|
Personally, I don't think there's much of anything that one can do to make a GM "better." My absolute favorite GM draws his maps on a dry erase board. I've also played with GMs who had tons of props and manipulative that I didn't care for. Plus asking Paizo to give out product to good GMs is not a particularly good move for them from a business standpoint.
|
|
There's a decent chance that what I'm about to say will offend you, and I apologize in advance. With that said, this is perhaps the most ego-ridden post that I have read in a long time. Your point isn't clearly constructed because you contradict yourself several times, but it seems to boil down to, "We can't be having the 'wrong' type of GM in our GMing pool because their 'wrongness' might ruin games."
Actually, that's not what it boils down to, and I'm not offended - the interwebs aren't a great communication medium.
I offer my perspective, one based on running a pretty decent Lodge for several years, growing it from 1 table to the biggest lodge in Canada. We never had a problem attracting or retaining GMs - in fact, we routinely had to limit GMing at special events because we had so many people who wanted to GM. If that situation doesn't hold any value or interest for you, great - it's just my experience.
As for "wrong" GMs (your term, not mine) - this isn't about "wrongness" as it applies to style, technique, personality, motivation, or any of that - it's about doing the job. As in, reading the scenario, prepping the combats, knowing the plot, and being able to run the scenario. Most of the times in my experience, people who sign up to GM now are willing do that work, or they don't sign up to GM in the first place. Extra prizes might increase sign-up, but won't encourage people to do that prep if they're not willing to do it now.
Best of luck, and sorry that you see ego because someone has a different experience than you.
|
|
Personally, I don't think there's much of anything that one can do to make a GM "better."
A few things off the top of my head that have worked for us:
* running GM101/GM201* sharing prep materials, pre-drawn maps, minis, handouts, props, costumes
* personal mentoring by one of the more experienced GMs in the group
* great players who encourage the GM (especially when they are new)
* running the same scenario more than once (used to be for no credit beyond GM stars, but it allows one to re-use all that rpep time for more than one group)
* playing or GMing at a convention where you get outside your own regional biases
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. Most of the times in my experience, people who sign up to GM now are willing do that work, or they don't sign up to GM in the first place. Extra prizes might increase sign-up, but won't encourage people to do that prep if they're not willing to do it now.
Players don't want to dm because they think its a lot harder than it is and you have to know all the rules in the game. If you get them to try it a time or two they say "i didn't know half the rules, i think i made up an entire town on accident, I got into the moment forgot the monsters tactics... and everyone still had fun..." and then they'll do it again. A carrot to nudge people into the water would be handy.
I don't wana go in its cold!!!
*SPLASH*
BURRRR FREEZING FREEZING FREEZING....hey you get used to it
|
|
Players don't want to dm because they think its a lot harder than it is and you have to know all the rules in the game. If you get them to try it a time or two they say "i didn't know half the rules, i think i made up an entire town on accident, I got into the moment forgot the monsters tactics... and everyone still had fun..." and then they'll do it again. A carrot to nudge people into the water would be handy.I don't wana go in its cold!!!
*SPLASH*
BURRRR FREEZING FREEZING FREEZING....hey you get used to it
Alternatively:
"I GM'd for a different campaign for years, and it got to a point where it felt like *every single table I ran* was being 'armchair quarterbacked' by some 'unseen power Illuminati' (one gaming bully in particular) every time I so much as let the players laugh at the table or have fun with the slots I was running.
And then, after being requested to run something on exceptionally short notice (a 'from scratch' special-equivalent one-shot), the same 'unseen power Illuminati' refused to play at first after roleplay opportunities were given to characters, then started complaining about rulings made a month after the event.
I want to GM, but I'm Terrified of Watched."
|
|
I thought about this when I was first brainstorming my system, and the general consensus that I came up with was that A) this would be a REAL pain in the butt to moderate from the Organized Play end and B) part of the idea is to not invalidate the current rewards systems that are in place. As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I think that Con GMs SHOULD get something sweet for their assistance and support, so I don't think that allowing easy access to Con boons is the answer. This needs to be a system that's separated from the Con Boon system or else we're going to be getting schisms and general negativity.
This doesn't preclude special convention GM boons from being handed out, rather it would likely replace the system for the more common player and GM boons. To top it off, giving convention GMs/players 5-10x the progress towards their next boon as a weekly scenario GM/player seems like it would encourage convention play without adding to the existing schism between convention and home games.
|
|
This doesn't preclude special convention GM boons from being handed out, rather it would likely replace the system for the more common player and GM boons. To top it off, giving convention GMs/players 5-10x the progress towards their next boon as a weekly scenario GM/player seems like it would encourage convention play without adding to the existing schism between convention and home games.
Okay, so GM A can run two games a week at the FLGS PLUS take in a convention a month because they work 20 hours a week in high-paying job of some sort.
GM B can take in a convention every couple of months if he can arrange the scheduling off work, and might be able to squeeze in a game every couple of weeks because they work 40 hours a week in a variable scheduled job that prevents them from doing a lot of out-of-work stuff.
GM C can run two games a week at the FLGS but that's the extent of their scheduling, because they don't have a job and things are 'tight'.
GM D is running five PbP games online each month, but is in a geographically remote location that precludes ever attending a convention save winning the lottery or inheriting a great deal of cash.
How does this 'balance out'/incentivize for GMs?
|
Okay, so GM A can run two games a week at the FLGS PLUS take in a convention a month because they work 20 hours a week in high-paying job of some sort.
GM B can take in a convention every couple of months if he can arrange the scheduling off work, and might be able to squeeze in a game every couple of weeks because they work 40 hours a week in a variable scheduled job that prevents them from doing a lot of out-of-work stuff.
GM C can run two games a week at the FLGS but that's the extent of their scheduling, because they don't have a job and things are 'tight'.
GM D is running five PbP games online each month, but is in a geographically remote location that precludes ever attending a convention save winning the lottery or inheriting a great deal of cash.
How does this 'balance out'/incentivize for GMs?
GM A does what (s)he can.
GM B does what (s)he can.GM C does what (s)he can.
GM D does what (s)he can.
It's not Paizo's job to decide what particular a GM's life outside looks like. Unless it is, in which case they can send me a check.
|
|
@Jayson: However, part of the underlying discussion point here was to reward GMs. Somewhere along the way conventions got added in at extra rates, and a few other things have been hit on as well.
If a person is unable to attend conventions, and folks at conventions are getting 'more weight' to their GMing time, isn't that taking the equation back to square one?
I could be suffering from a gross conceptual error here, but I thought the idea was to *balance* it out, not load up one section over another?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not Paizo's job to decide what particular a GM's life outside looks like. Unless it is, in which case they can send me a check.
What paizo does do is reward people based on their circumstances, not by their contribution or effort. Thats inherently unfair and is the sort of thing people are SUPPOSED to complain about.
Getting rained on happens.
Gross discrepancies in how people are treated is something that people DO.
|
|
The example I gave wasn't to balance it out (as much as I would like that) but to at the very least make sure that most boons are available to all types of players. My ideal method of boon distribution would treat all GMs and players alike, a table is a table. I do understand however that conventions take extra effort and organization, and having no personal experience GMing at a convention nor trying to organize one I'm not going to be the one to argue against the status quo and jump up and down saying that convention GMs shouldn't get more rewards for their time. The crude numbers I came up with attempted to target a convention GM getting 1-2 boons for running a couple tables, and allowed for some scaling for size of convention or loosely organized game day.
|
|
@Jayson: However, part of the underlying discussion point here was to reward GMs. Somewhere along the way conventions got added in at extra rates, and a few other things have been hit on as well.
If a person is unable to attend conventions, and folks at conventions are getting 'more weight' to their GMing time, isn't that taking the equation back to square one?
I could be suffering from a gross conceptual error here, but I thought the idea was to *balance* it out, not load up one section over another?
In your example, you focus on the fact that GM A can do more. You should focus on the fact that GM A does do more.
|
Contributor
|
I thought about this when I was first brainstorming my system, and the general consensus that I came up with was that A) this would be a REAL pain in the butt to moderate from the Organized Play end and B) part of the idea is to not invalidate the current rewards systems that are in place. As I've said elsewhere in the thread, I think that Con GMs SHOULD get something sweet for their assistance and support, so I don't think that allowing easy access to Con boons is the answer. This needs to be a system that's separated from the Con Boon system or else we're going to be getting schisms and general negativity.This doesn't preclude special convention GM boons from being handed out, rather it would likely replace the system for the more common player and GM boons. To top it off, giving convention GMs/players 5-10x the progress towards their next boon as a weekly scenario GM/player seems like it would encourage convention play without adding to the existing schism between convention and home games.
This is true; convention GMs could theoretically receive a boon that gave them bonus Prestige for their efforts. I think x5 is too much, but double seems fair.
|
|
GM A shows up at a convention once a year and runs 10 games. BOONS!
GM B runs a weekly game at the store. 50ish games a year, no boons.
In a vacuum (as presented):
GM A: One convention boon, one replay, one first-level ability on a GM Reward Chronicle, (maximum) 10 XP of credit (probably less- -you're likely running the same scenario repeatedly)
GM B: No convention boons, two replays (a third at 60 games), two abilities on a GM Reward Chronicle, ~50 XP of GM Credit