|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I'm asking for is a refresh of GM star credits annually. Making it a boon was a mistake I believe.
It will limit replay, and encourage GM-ing. Plus, anyone who is actually a high star level GM will generally abide by "not being a jerk." We DO generally trust someone who is a 4 - 5 star GM right?
It will prevent multiple speed runs as well, and give the prolific GM's an ability to play with friends here and there where they may have run through originally.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
All I'm asking for is a refresh of GM star credits annually. Making it a boon was a mistake I believe.
I believe it was the perfect idea. It allows for evaluation of the effects before deciding to increase or reduce availability. I have faith the John and Tonya will decide to remove the need for a boon when they have evaluated the results and determined that no harm has been done.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you have run out of scenarios to play, you'd make an excellent GM. Pay it forward.
There are a lot of players that absolutely do not make good GMs.
Many people are involved with PFS, because it fits their lifestyle far better than a home campaign would. You can show up to have some fun for a few hours in a fully packaged adventure and then head on to other things in life. In a home campaign, you are expected to attend close to every session. In PFS, you can come and go as you please.
There are expectations of GMing that you present the story well, in order to make it an enjoyable time for everyone at the table. Some GMs can pick up something blind and do that, but there are many that cannot. Some are perfectionists and will spend hours of prep work several weeks before their scenario is to be run. If someone like that can't GM often, that's fine.
Players who aren't good GMs don't have be bad players though, either. They may not be great at GMing, but will spend a lot of time and thought into building great characters. You don't have to "pay it forward" by GMing if you are excellent player. You're making the game fun for everyone at the table by sitting across from the GM.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
10 PFS scenarios a month. So that's... 40-50hrs/month?
Paizo's producing enough to play 25hrs/month of fresh content (scenarios, AP, modules)? So really, your players need 15-25 more hours of TTRPGs to "get their groove on"?
Here's why the written rule of no replay is good (and it's not the obvious reason like forced GMing or player's spoiling stuff):
* Scenarios aren't the best TTRPG adventure out there. Sure, there are exceptions, but they're fairly average taken as a whole.
* There's some brilliant content in APs that the no-replay rules may just force you into giving a try (and you'll thank the no-replay rule once you realized it was the forcing function to get you play them).
* There's some brilliant other gaming systems out there, which once you start playing them, you'd be happy the no-replay rules forced you to fill your time with instead of seeing Silent Tide again.
So, yes, I applaud of the no-replay rule as it'd help someone who perhaps lacks the will or self-control to go try something else. There's some folks out there who need hard firm campaign rules to get them out of their comfort zone to try something fresh and new. And I'd honestly believe most people would have more fun playing a fresh/new adventure (and a solid one like an AP) than playing through the 3rd, 4th or 5th time through a 2-star scenario.
And here's the real secret.
.. "man, I'd love to play through all the Grandmaster Torch scenarios again"
.. "man, I'd love to do that with all the classic campaign rules".
You could absolutely do that. You could even print out chronicles and use them to handle leveling and access to charged items.
You just can't take those PCs into a convention (for example) and have them mix their credit. You can even hand out chronicles for the purposes of XP and leveling. You can try to be good about this and mark those chronicles with a big stamp that says "LOCAL FREE PLAY - NOT VALID FOR PFS CAMPAIGN MODE". GMs could even deviate from tactics if they wished. It'd all be a gentleman's agreement. Nothing stops a non-PFS campaign GM from using scenarios as the adventures he/she runs for a group of people. You could go nuts in the free play mode if you wished too, with vivisectionists and synthesists running amok. You could go even crazier, and throw some Living Greyhawk adventures in the middle and see if anyone notices.
Nobody is going to arrest you for running a series of adventures for a group of human beings where you use PFS scenarios as your narrative and crunch.
So, if I were in your shoes, I'd do a gentle nudge, "hey guys would you rather replay Silent Tide the 2nd, 3rd or 4th time, or would you rather play Iron Gods?" or "would you rather play 13th Age? or 5th Ed?"
If despite all the caution, folks really want to replay again, you can try the "real secret" and see if it has legs for your local die-hards.
|
Honesty, I don't fully get the whole idea that GMs have to be given more replay and more rewards to want to GM. If you don't enjoy GMing for its own sake, why are you doing it? Yes, GM credit is a nice and great thing. But I GM a lot of repeat scenarios without credit, and I'm happy to do it, because, well, this is my hobby. I know that some people prefer to play to GM; those people really probably shouldn't be GMing any more than they are.
I agree with the sentiment. However it isn't a very practical sentiment because in order for it to work, at least 1 in 7 gamers has to enjoy GMing more than they do playing, and in my experience, the number is much lower than that. I am in a constant battle to find GMs for tables in my venue, and have had this problem with other organized play campaigns before PFS. So I welcome almost any incentive Paizo may give to people for GMing.
That said, based on my previous experiences with other organized play campaigns that I have elaborated on in other similar threads, I do not think increasing replay limits even more than they have been would be good for the campaign.
As a side note, I am an avid miniatures collector and usually get several bricks, if not an entire case, of each set of minis and did so back when WotC was doing random minis also. As a result I get a lot of excess minis. I don't really need more than 4 owlbears or more than one Sheila Hiedmarch, so I frequently sell them back to the stores for credit to buy more minis. I had a box full of spare minis I had been saving up to do just that. But it dawned on me they might serve a better purpose than just getting me a few more minis. I started offering a free pick from the box for anyone who would GM at our location. Now, the primary reason I did this was because I am getting desperate to get people to GM in my area and I am fairly sure our GM shortage is having an adverse effect on our player base, as well. But I will also admit to having a pet peeve about people using coins, stones, chess pawns, starbusts, etc. as minis. So I want to see everyone using minis. So this helps some with that problem too.
I won't, however, recommend this to everyone as it costs money and just because I feel I have sufficient disposable income to do this doesn't mean everyone else does. Nor do I expect everyone to have my Pet Peeve about minis at the table.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the sentiment. However it isn't a very practical sentiment because in order for it to work, at least 1 in 7 gamers has to enjoy GMing more than they do playing, and in my experience, the number is much lower than that. I am in a constant battle to find GMs for tables in my venue, and have had this problem with other organized play campaigns before PFS. So I welcome almost any incentive Paizo may give to people for GMing.Honesty, I don't fully get the whole idea that GMs have to be given more replay and more rewards to want to GM. If you don't enjoy GMing for its own sake, why are you doing it? Yes, GM credit is a nice and great thing. But I GM a lot of repeat scenarios without credit, and I'm happy to do it, because, well, this is my hobby. I know that some people prefer to play to GM; those people really probably shouldn't be GMing any more than they are.
We really need to invent wormholes. Or at least transporters. Here in Pittsburgh, we don't have a problem finding GMs. In fact, at gamedays, sometimes people are disappointed because the game they wanted to GM didn't fill, or because all the slots to GM were filled before they got to the warhorn to sign up.
Anecdotally, it seems that more places are like were you are than Pittsburgh. (Pitt isn't the only place; look at how fast the volunteer slots at PaizoCon fill up.) But, if there were some magical way to get good GMs who want to GM to be able to spread themselves out more, it'd be easier to fill tables. Ah, living the fantasy life.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
The topic is Relaxing the Replaying Policies. Most suggestions are not discussing unlimited replaying.
Slippery slope. We allow some replay already, people are asking for "just a little more." Many will not be satisfied asking for a little more until they can say, "We've got so many options for replay that keeping track of them is too much of a hassle, why not just allow unlimited replay? It'll make everyone's life easier and not really change anything."
Personally, I'd be in favor of eliminating all replay, although allowing GMs to play through once after running if they had never otherwise played the scenario does make some sense.
Personally, I've only ever knowingly replayed evergreens and to make a table that would have failed without me. I got no credit for the latter, of course. I also don't really enjoy playing after I've read or GMed a scenario. Knowing what's coming takes the fun out of it for me.
It's not like watching TV. You can only fully experience a scenario once, and that means going into it without any foreknowledge. At that point, that scenario becomes part of that character's personal story and none of my other characters can experience it.
I know that's my choice, but it doesn't change the fact that excessive replay is deleterious to the health of a campaign. It attracts players who are more interested in getting the best rewards than those who are there to experience the story and share it with friends.
|
|
We really need to invent wormholes. Or at least transporters. Here in Pittsburgh, we don't have a problem finding GMs. In fact, at gamedays, sometimes people are disappointed because the game they wanted to GM didn't fill, or because all the slots to GM were filled before they got to the warhorn to sign up.
I would suggest a few of them move to Phoenix if I didn't think they would melt like snow goons down here. :)
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The topic is Relaxing the Replaying Policies. Most suggestions are not discussing unlimited replaying.
They have been relaxed. After being relaxed once, they got relaxed again. How much further do they need to be relaxed, now? After that new relaxation effect has worn off, how much more will you want then?
Find other solutions. People are proposing lots of things that have worked for them.
It gets tiresome to hear that more replay is the only solution. The only thing I am 100% positive about more replay generating is destructive playing habits.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
The only older content I can think of at the moment is a few scenarios (most of which were retired for good reason), and older Adventure Paths which have not yet been sanctioned. Personally, I'd rather see limited resources being spent releasing current material in a more timely fashion; only when that problem is solved should anyone think of looking at older content.
|
|
Well, they are working on the AP´s step by step. Some are difficult to do though and they aren´t the highest priority.
And in a case like here, where you have a large pool of people regularly and constantly meeting, i don´t think it´s really necessary that everything is PFS legal.
Playing an AP from beginning to end is it´s own fun!
|
|
Find other solutions, right?
So what is the solution to a group of players who are up and coming, and they want to do some of the scenarios like Waking Rune and Eyes of the Ten because they heard they were really cool.
They don't have enough to make a full table, and others who have not played it would rather continue to enjoy the low level game, effectively leaving these few folks stranded on an island until maybe, a couple of people will get there in a year or three.. Sure there are other alternatives, other modules, and such, but they want to have the crack at those that the first group did.
Some have offered to replay those with them. But they can't because of some jerk doing super replay "speed runs" in Cincinnati ruined it for everyone, In a different game and a different living campaign at that! (Just picked Cincinnati because its a city far from my own, not because it actually did it)
Look, the replay we are suggesting is not unlimited. Its not even that unrestricted. The current restrictions on replay are just going to drive players to simply ignore those rules. Yes, it is driving some players to want to <gasp> cheat when it comes to replay, because in the end, it's not really policed by anyone. Let's be honest with each other. If someone wants to replay against the rules, there's pretty much nothing stopping them, aside from their own honesty and integrity. I mean really, when was the last time you had all your chronicle and inventory track sheets audited, especially against the other characters you have?
The only tracking we have is the website, which isn't all that accurate as results get put in by anyone and at the whim of the entrant. We find ourselves with a bunch of materials that are increasingly worthless as we won't bring ourselves to break the rules.
So, no, "Find another Solution" is a dismissive and frankly condescending answer. It's not that simple, and if replay is a big scare because of "cheating" just look at the other type of "cheating" it encourages.
I stand by my position to have GM stars refresh annually. I still believe that making it a boon unfairly punishes those that cannot make it to larger conventions, which most of the specials already feel like they do. This will limit replay to, at maximum, 5 per year. Further I wish to specify in that when I say replay, that it is for the player and not the character (Same character cannot do same scenario more than once, even with stars.)
Unfortunately, I don't believe we are going to change any of our minds on the matter with this thread, other than having our voices heard.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I stand by my position to have GM stars refresh annually. I still believe that making it a boon unfairly punishes those that cannot make it to larger conventions, which most of the specials already feel like they do. This will limit replay to, at maximum, 5 per year...
I don't believe you are accurate when you say that no one will change this. I personally have always been confused by star-replays being a "one time deal" and expect them to revise this, eventually. I'm honestly surprised they've waited this long. The "destructive playing habits" I (and others like me) decry are almost exclusively reserved to people who refuse to GM, so this step would not end up doing any lasting harm.
But saying that the existing restrictions on replay encourage cheating is a bit alarmist and won't help your cause. Calling me dismissive and condescending won't help, either. I'm pretty willing to listen to reasoned arguments.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
They don't have enough to make a full table, and others who have not played it would rather continue to enjoy the low level game, effectively leaving these few folks stranded on an island until maybe, a couple of people will get there in a year or three.. Sure there are other alternatives, other modules, and such, but they want to have the crack at those that the first group did.
Some have offered to replay those with them. But they can't because of...
Reminder: for purposes of making a legal table, the veterans can replay those scenarios. They don't get a chronicle sheet, is all.
|
|
Reminder: for purposes of making a legal table, the veterans can replay those scenarios. They don't get a chronicle sheet, is all.They don't have enough to make a full table, and others who have not played it would rather continue to enjoy the low level game, effectively leaving these few folks stranded on an island until maybe, a couple of people will get there in a year or three.. Sure there are other alternatives, other modules, and such, but they want to have the crack at those that the first group did.
Some have offered to replay those with them. But they can't because of...
Actually, if they are using their own PC to make the table, rather than using one of the pregens, they get a 0 XP/PP/GP chronicle so they can record any expenses they incurred helping out making the table.
And for some of these, using a level 7 pregen, instead of a "real" PC of appropriate level, can make or break the adventure.
And, of course, if you manage to make it above 11th level, those tables require at least 4 "real" PCs to play, no pregens available higher in level than 7 for PFS. Also applies to any module play for modules whose Tier is 8-10 or higher...
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So what is the solution to a group of players who are up and coming, and they want to do some of the scenarios like Waking Rune and Eyes of the Ten because they heard they were really cool
... if you manage to make it above 11th level, those tables require at least 4 "real" PCs to play, no pregens available higher in level than 7 for PFS.
If you're above 11th level, you can't play Waking Rune.
It would be very strange to play the Eyes of the Ten series with several players who are just replaying to help make a legal table.
|
|
What about making scenario's that a Gm can Roll several aspects of it allowing for quite a few different things that could happen during play.
For instance the opponents faction could be determined by a dice roll for the gm, makes it interesting as different pc's would have different reactions insights on them. This may also determine their objectives creating a different story that builds off the same environment.
Different creatures/ enemy party makeups could also be determined by a dice roll. this would change up the tactics that the enemy uses and possibly give the pc's chances for favorable or unfavorable encounters.
I am not sure how many factors the developers would want to put in this would clearly be a more difficult type of scenario to create but these scenarios would create awesome unique adventures, hell it would even be fun to roll them up as a gm I would think :).
|
|
What about making scenario's that a Gm can Roll several aspects of it allowing for quite a few different things that could happen during play.
For instance the opponents faction could be determined by a dice roll for the gm, makes it interesting as different pc's would have different reactions insights on them. This may also determine their objectives creating a different story that builds off the same environment.
Different creatures/ enemy party makeups could also be determined by a dice roll. this would change up the tactics that the enemy uses and possibly give the pc's chances for favorable or unfavorable encounters.
I am not sure how many factors the developers would want to put in this would clearly be a more difficult type of scenario to create but these scenarios would create awesome unique adventures, hell it would even be fun to roll them up as a gm I would think :).
These are called 'evergreens' and they already exist (a lot) for L1(Or one time play at L2 in some cases).
Venture-Captain, North Carolina—Asheville
|
These are called 'evergreens' and they already exist (a lot) for L1(Or one time play at L2 in some cases).What about making scenario's that a Gm can Roll several aspects of it allowing for quite a few different things that could happen during play.
For instance the opponents faction could be determined by a dice roll for the gm, makes it interesting as different pc's would have different reactions insights on them. This may also determine their objectives creating a different story that builds off the same environment.
Different creatures/ enemy party makeups could also be determined by a dice roll. this would change up the tactics that the enemy uses and possibly give the pc's chances for favorable or unfavorable encounters.
I am not sure how many factors the developers would want to put in this would clearly be a more difficult type of scenario to create but these scenarios would create awesome unique adventures, hell it would even be fun to roll them up as a gm I would think :).
The Consortium Compact (the evergreen from the current season) does a really good job of boosting replayability. At a minimum, you have to play the scenario twice to see everything -- disregarding any randomized aspects.
There is also at least one non-evergreen with a randomization mechanic built into it (Murder on the Throaty Mermaid). I have neither played nor run that scenario, though, so I cannot vouch for how extensive the 'replay value' on that one is.
|
|
Slightly off-topic, at what point is one deemed to have "played" a scenario?
For example, I turn up to the table at a con, sign the sign in sheet, get halfway throught the briefing from the VC and then, before any dice are rolled or encounters occur, have to leave for some RL emergency. Does that count as my once ever play of that scenario?
|
|
Slightly off-topic, at what point is one deemed to have "played" a scenario?
For example, I turn up to the table at a con, sign the sign in sheet, get halfway throught the briefing from the VC and then, before any dice are rolled or encounters occur, have to leave for some RL emergency. Does that count as my once ever play of that scenario?
In that kind of situation, the GM should just mark your name off the sheet, refigure APL, and keep going.
|
|
Slightly off-topic, at what point is one deemed to have "played" a scenario?
For example, I turn up to the table at a con, sign the sign in sheet, get halfway throught the briefing from the VC and then, before any dice are rolled or encounters occur, have to leave for some RL emergency. Does that count as my once ever play of that scenario?
I have never (in person) encountered any judge that wouldn't just remove your info from the sign-in sheet.
That said, there are people who have said otherwise on the boards. I'll see if I can find a link to the statements...
There are many 'mythical' GMs online that claim they will do things that I have never seen a GM do in real life, and I go to a fair number of Cons.
|
The one time at a convention I've had a player leave early, he had made it through the briefing, the gathering of information, and one combat. I gave the rest of the players a 5-minute break, handed him a 0/0/123(whatever he earned up to that point) Gold chronicle (explained this was required of me by the rules) and sent him on his way.
If he had ducked out mid-briefing (like above- -pre-dice), I likely wouldn't have given him a chronicle and rather just struck his name from the record.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding the "running out of content" question. I have to say, I find the current amount of content rather daunting. Unless I win the lottery, I won't have time to play a season's worth of content... ever.
I know there are a number of truly dedicated players, but are they a sufficient proportion of the playerbase to need new rules for letting them play even more? There are Scenarios, Modules and APs that all give credit.
Earlier on, someone mentioned that they are trying to keep players from quitting (or moving on to other games) due to lack of content. I don't understand the motivation of loving the game so much they'll quit if they can't play more. Would they not be able to do both if they have the time to run PFS out of content?
|
|
Regarding the "running out of content" question. I have to say, I find the current amount of content rather daunting. Unless I win the lottery, I won't have time to play a season's worth of content... ever.
I know there are a number of truly dedicated players, but are they a sufficient proportion of the playerbase to need new rules for letting them play even more? There are Scenarios, Modules and APs that all give credit.
Earlier on, someone mentioned that they are trying to keep players from quitting (or moving on to other games) due to lack of content. I don't understand the motivation of loving the game so much they'll quit if they can't play more. Would they not be able to do both if they have the time to run PFS out of content?
It's the problem of geek sudoku.
I've only been playing in PFS for about EDIT one and a half years /EDIT. However, between forum play, VTT play, and convention play, I've played a good bunch of scenarios and modules.
Now if I were part of a local group, suddenly everything I've played in Regular isn't available, because it can only be played once (not counting GM stars of which I don't have).
This means if someone wants to run Season Six, I'd have to skip out of about half the scenarios. This could make tables *not go off* if I'm the third/fourth person.
In addition, if our hypothetical group started with three 'evergreens' before we started playing 'content I could not play because I'd already played it' I could theoretically be out of tier with the rest of the group as quickly as one module or within a few weeks of scenarios.
I'm one person. Now add the lists of at least two to three other people into the mix. Suddenly what seems what a large pile of possibilities narrows down quite quickly.
This being said, having things somewhat restricted to evergreens is pretty nice, though I'd relax the 2nd level 'one and done' rule -- that is minimally invasive and 1-2 scenarios are built so 2's can play them...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lack of time and resources to sanction modules and APs is a cop out. Paizo has an enormous stable of talent that already produces monthly scenarios, module authors, venture officers, and a crap load of 5 star GMs loose in the wild. Some people are all of those combined. The task of taking a first cut at chronicle sheets could be farmed out to the best of the best of those folks easily.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lack of time and resources to sanction modules and APs is a cop out. Paizo has an enormous stable of talent that already produces monthly scenarios, module authors, venture officers, and a crap load of 5 star GMs loose in the wild. Some people are all of those combined. The task of taking a first cut at chronicle sheets could be farmed out to the best of the best of those folks easily.
And the schedule for Paizo is *already* packed full to the gills, AND venture officers are *volunteers* that are already spending huge amounts of time organizing things.
It isn't nearly as simple as 'farming it out to the best of folks'. A lot of the 'best' folks also have *real life jobs* and *other obligations*. Please do not presume that being a 5-star GM or any sort of officer position is an effortless task.
*notes while he isn't in leadership for PFS, he was in one in a different campaign, and there was rarely enough time to get the *needed* things done, much less the 'boy, wouldn't it be nice' things...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The task of taking a first cut at chronicle sheets could be farmed out to the best of the best of those folks easily.
The first cut is never the bottleneck, it's the last cut where it has to go through the coordinator/developer. There's a reason we added ten RVCs to process input before it gets to Tonya.
Developer
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Lack of time and resources to sanction modules and APs is a cop out. Paizo has an enormous stable of talent that already produces monthly scenarios, module authors, venture officers, and a crap load of 5 star GMs loose in the wild. Some people are all of those combined. The task of taking a first cut at chronicle sheets could be farmed out to the best of the best of those folks easily.
However in all fairness, those first cracks at adaptation text and Chronicle sheets still need to go through Linda and me. In the past, most of those additional projects happened off the grid (i.e. on my own time) because my standard work week was taken up by outlining, developing scenarios, planning new seasons, and chipping away at the huge number of convention season specials. With the help of our project manager Jessica Price, we've assessed how long it takes to perform various tasks so that we can schedule the appropriate amount of time for each project—and minimize the chance that an important task falls through the cracks.
Developing (and possibly re-writing) those new Chronicle sheets takes time, and it needs to be part of the production schedule to ensure that the spectacular PaizoCon, Gen Con, and new season accouterment can reach GMs in a timely fashion. I want to deliver as many great things as I can to the organized play campaign, yet I've been informed that I should try not working over the weekend. Working with rather than against the production schedule is what helps to find that middle ground.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, we have a large stable of freelance writers who write modules and scenarios for us. All that stuff still has to go through internal developers, whose time is at a premium.
|
|
Yes, we have a large stable of freelance writers who write modules and scenarios for us. All that stuff still has to go through internal developers, whose time is at a premium.
This confuses me for simple economics. If you have a demand why can you not fill it?
If you argue that it is not cost effective to increase supply.
Create a premium supply. If the issue is people are not willing provide the financial support to provide for this that is your problem then.
|
|
Excuses? It's just reality that there is only so much work each employee can perform. Adding Linda has increased their capacity, but that capacity is still outstripped by the workload. Add in the fact that you can only add so many to the campaign team before the increased communication required to keep everyone on the same page diminishes the return to nothing.
|
|
Excuses? It's just reality that there is only so much work each employee can perform. Adding Linda has increased their capacity, but that capacity is still outstripped by the workload. Add in the fact that you can only add so many to the campaign team before the increased communication required to keep everyone on the same page diminishes the return to nothing.
I highly doubt the law of diminish returns comes into effect so quickly.
|
|
Excuses? It's just reality that there is only so much work each employee can perform. Adding Linda has increased their capacity, but that capacity is still outstripped by the workload. Add in the fact that you can only add so many to the campaign team before the increased communication required to keep everyone on the same page diminishes the return to nothing.
Not to mention that Linda needed to train in on the software and Paizo's specific processes. And John and Linda got behind during the nearly 3 month period of time between Mike and Tonya while John was performing campaign coordinator duties as well.
It seems though, that John and Linda are getting things back on track and may even be ahead of the curve at some point. But we need to give them the time to fully get Linda integrated into the system, recover from the 3 months of extra work, and other stuff I'm sure we are completely unaware of.
The point is, we literally have no idea exactly what each person does on a daily basis and what each of their duties entail. And without that knowledge it doesn't really behoove any of us to judge whether they are doing enough or not.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Excuses? It's just reality that there is only so much work each employee can perform. Adding Linda has increased their capacity, but that capacity is still outstripped by the workload. Add in the fact that you can only add so many to the campaign team before the increased communication required to keep everyone on the same page diminishes the return to nothing.I highly doubt the law of diminish returns comes into effect so quickly.
While I don't work at Paizo and am not a developer for them, nor am I a project manager for them, I do have duties at my day job that fill a similar scope. I am a project engineer and detailer for a door and hardware company. Basically I analyze blueprints all day and input that information into our data base so that we can furnish doors, frames, and door hardware to commercial and industrial customers (as opposed to residential). Part of my duties is also project management.
And it is incredibly easy to set a list of priorities only to be interrupted time and again by a new set of priorities. So you take those tasks that might only take 10 minutes or an hour, and say, "Hey, I usually have an extra hour on Fridays, I'll do it last thing before I go home for the weekend," only to have something pop up that takes up my time on Friday, over, and over, and over and over. So then two weeks, two months, maybe even 5 or 6 depending on what it is, peeks its head from under my pile of 10-minute tasks.
Adding another set of tasks of having to manage a team of volunteers to give you more development work really becomes counterproductive and may slow the entire system down rather than get things done more quickly.
|
|
Excuses? It's just reality that there is only so much work each employee can perform. Adding Linda has increased their capacity, but that capacity is still outstripped by the workload. Add in the fact that you can only add so many to the campaign team before the increased communication required to keep everyone on the same page diminishes the return to nothing.Not to mention that Linda needed to train in on the software and Paizo's specific processes. And John and Linda got behind during the nearly 3 month period of time between Mike and Tonya while John was performing campaign coordinator duties as well.
It seems though, that John and Linda are getting things back on track and may even be ahead of the curve at some point. But we need to give them the time to fully get Linda integrated into the system, recover from the 3 months of extra work, and other stuff I'm sure we are completely unaware of.
The point is, we literally have no idea exactly what each person does on a daily basis and what each of their duties entail. And without that knowledge it doesn't really behoove any of us to judge whether they are doing enough or not.
Pretty much this what Andy said, with a helping of "Hey, they're starting to get stuff back on track." With the holiday boon and the sanctioning of two AP's in the past two months, it looks like Leadership is starting to get stuff back on track as far as sanctioning material is comcerned.