|
Maybe the difference I see comes from online play. Setting up maps and macros for an online game is pretty time intensive. Once you have things set up it's actually pretty easy to run a second time. The issue I've come up against is scenarios that don't get run because the effort to build the table isn't worth the effort when you only get credit once. I have had multiple GMs tell me this when I've inquired about various games.
I'm sorry to hear this. I personally keep every Roll20 table I build just so I can run it again with a new group. I schedule one scenario per GM at our cons so that they can have an easy time prepping and getting that adventure down pat. I only ask experienced GMs if they want to run multiple adventures, or schedule newer GMs for that only if they ask me instead. I just don't see this kind of response to multiple runs of single scenarios as you do. Most of the time my GMs want to get really good at one scenario at a time, rather than spreading focus among two or three different ones.
Venture-Captain, Washington—Spokane
|
As another who cringes every time they see a thread on unlimited credits, I am one who thinks this is not a fix for anything. It has been expressed on several occasions that unlimited replay credits have caused issues in other organized play campaigns (sorry, I do not have the time to go through and search for all the instances where this has been mentioned).
Personally, I am very happy with receiving table credits for a sanctioned adventure that I have run multiple times. Running something that I have already GM'd makes the preparation much easier and works great for short notice tables. If it is something I particularly enjoy running (School of Spirits, Dead Man's Debt, Elven Entanglement, We Be Goblins, True Dragons of Absalom), I am more apt to run these repeatedly or...
burn a GM star to reGM. Someone upthread mentioned granting the ability of GMs to use their stars to reGM a scenario/module. According to the blog that opened star replay/reGM as a reward to starred GMs, we have that option in place already
When Version 5.0 of the Guide to Pathfinder Society Organized Play goes live, campaign participants who have been recognized for their efforts as a GM by receiving GM stars will be able to replay or "re-GM" a limited number of scenarios—specifically one scenario for each star earned. In this way a participant may earn a third Chronicle sheet from a given scenario: one for playing, one for GMing, and one for either playing or GMing that scenario a second time. No character may ever have two of the same Chronicle sheet, so one must apply each sheet to a different character each time. When earning a third Chronicle in this way, the GM should write "GM Star Replay Credit" on the Chronicle sheet.
I will normally do what I can to insure a table of players can play something regardless of if I had GMd the scenario before or it is brand new. The rewards are nice, don't get me wrong, but I would still do this if they were not there at all.
|
|
Would something like additional/unlimited until you have your third star be a worthy option? From what I'm reading, it looks like the ones who are against it, generally have 4/5 stars.
I live in an area with a small player base.
Personally, i either play or gm online, or I have a 2+ hour drive to go to the closest in-person game. 8hrs drive to a "con" with more than 2 or 3 tables. For someone like me, yeah, I'd like to have credit for everything I'm involved with for as little as I get to experience. Fortunately am able to make those trips, sparingly, but it is a significant investment doing so.
I have passed on expanded narrative boons, twice, I think, because of limited star replay, and how little time I have available. For me, while nice, the race boons are more interesting and more likely to get used. Or perhaps I haven't had the luxury of finding one of the "more awesome" utility boons yet, I don't know. Maybe I should have taken them for trade material.
I've only applied a single con boon to one of my 7 characters at this point, white awaiting a supposed rewrite(season 6 core race mounts,but not and animal companions). The rest, have seemed lackluster.
|
|
Would something like additional/unlimited until you have your third star be a worthy option? From what I'm reading, it looks like the ones who are against it, generally have 4/5 stars.
I'm suggesting this only half-seriously... but what if there were a way for those GMs who don't intend to use their stars for replays/reruns to "gift" them to a GM who will? I've never taken credit for rerunning a scenario (nor do I plan to) and would happily allow another GM to use my reruns in my place.
|
|
We've already given GMs the following benefits as people cried out that we needed to incentivize GMing:
- GM Stars boon sheet
- GM Stars & bonus to re-rolls
- Full chronicle, regardless of what the PCs earned
- GM boons at Cons and other eventsHow much more do we need? Unlimited GM credit, as previously posted, may alleviate a short-term GM issue, but will create long-term GM issues.
There's also opportunity costs to consider. By running the game instead of playing full chronicle becomes (full chronicle- whatever it is your players usually get) which is pretty close to full chronicle which means this is almos zero.
The GM star boons are kinda meh without the 5th one- i could run two scenarios and get most of what's on it.
DM boons are only at cons really. The other event thing kinda went back to teh drawing board and went poof.
|
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We've already given GMs the following benefits as people cried out that we needed to incentivize GMing:
- GM Stars boon sheet
- GM Stars & bonus to re-rolls
- Full chronicle, regardless of what the PCs earned
- GM boons at Cons and other eventsHow much more do we need? Unlimited GM credit, as previously posted, may alleviate a short-term GM issue, but will create long-term GM issues.
I respect your point of view on the topic. Please take a moment to consider this counterargument.
The problem is that *all* of the rewards you've listed incentify the person who GMs a lot. It doesn't incentify people who haven't GMed to try GMing.
Let's go over your list:
— Full Chronicles: This will likely be controversial, but I consider Chronicles to be payment for services rendered rather than a reward. As a GM sitting around the table, you're not doing anything that any of the players that showed up to play isn't doing. In fact, you're doing more, because you had to read the scenario, take notes, reference stat blocks, buy markers and one or more game mats, acquire proxies for monsters on the battle map (which may require spending more money), and so on. This is in contrast to the player, who only needs to show up to the table and keep track of her character. Any benefit you get from choosing your rewards on the chronicle sheet pales in comparison to the amount of extra work that you, as GM, did to make the table happen. And remember, we are not looking at this reward system from the prospect of rewarding Jenny AlwaysGM, who is an extroverted butterfly with no social anxieties and no need for motivation to try GMing. We're looking at this from the perspective of Rihanna Neverun, who is an awesome player and totally knows the rules, but needs something extra to motivate her to try GMing.
— GM Stars & Reroll Bonus: GM stars actually aren't listed in the GM Rewards section of the PFS Roleplaying Guide Guide to Organized Play; they've got their own section and the very first section describes them as "bragging rights." You or I might know differently, but to the average player, their status as rewards isn't transparent. Furthermore, they're rewards for continued service, not a "Thanks for running," reward. The time between stars is designed around being prestigious, not Pavlovian. We need positive reinforcement for new players to try GMing, and GM Stars don't cut because of the huge time investments.
—GM Stars Boon Sheet: This is a perfect example of a reward that isn't referenced anywhere. Its not in the GM Rewards section, and no one ever talks about it. Furthermore, the file doesn't even talk about rules regarding its application—I don't know if I can put one boon per character, or one boon once on one character. Not only that, but they're star based so like GM stars they don't offer positive reinforcement for getting someone new to try GMing.
— GM Boons at Events: This is a motivator for GMs to travel to Cons. This is not a motivator to get new people to try GMing, and there is a huge difference between those two. To the unordained player, making one's first PFS GMing experience be a convention is a terrifying conjecture. You're in a loud, crowded place with tons of officials running around (maybe even designers and regional coordinators). You are gaming with people you don't know, who will potentially bring characters to the table that aren't fun to game with. You might have to settle disputes between strangers. Most coordinators even pick people with GM experience over those who don't have any. No, this is not a reward for new players.
Now, I agree that this is a strange topic to have in a thread that is essentially about giving MORE rewards to existing GMs. When you get right down to it, making it more desirable for GMs to replay scenarios will not coerce new players into GMing. This is a fact, and it is also a short-term solution for a long-term problem.
So when you get right down to it, a system that incentifies GMing needs to be like Pokemon GO—it needs to offer real, immediate incentifies for someone to perform a behavior that they wouldn't normally do (GMing a game). That's why I've suggested a GM rewards system that empowers VCs, VLs, and VAs with ways to grant race boons and other rewards to GMs for their service. We can totally change people's behaviors and get them to try something new. But first we need to get rid of this stigma that a GM needs be solely altruistic in her decision to run games at her store. That line of thinking has not helped Organized Play grow new GMs, and it will not help Organized Play grow new GMs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It doesn't incentify people who haven't GMed to try GMing.
Alexander, I know I'm quoting you out of context... and please accept my apology for doing so.
But I want to use that statement to address the original topic – unlimited GM credit. Unlimited GM credit won't incentify people who haven't GMed to try GMing.
I don't believe any lack of GMs is caused by GMs refusing to rerun a scenario because they're not getting credit. I believe it's simply a shortage of players willing, able, or comfortable enough to step up and GM. Unlimited GM credit won't address that issue, but perhaps something else would.
|
|
Well, I for one, and several others on this board, have already directly stated or strongly implied they would GM more if they got credit for repeat runs.
Kifaru, please don't take this as an insult or attack; I'm just trying to understand your personal stance on this issue.
You mentioned in an earlier post that you only GM online and you've GMed just a little over 10 scenarios. There are many scenarios you can still run for credit and, if I'm not mistaken, when you GM online, you have control over which scenario is run. It should be very easy to choose a scenario for which you'd get credit. Or do you just want to run those 10 or so scenarios you've already prepped over and over again for credit?If that's the case, that's one of the issues I have with unlimited GM credit. There's nothing to prevent a GM from choosing 30 scenarios (or 10 modules) and running them over and over again to churn out 11th level characters (or picking 3 scenarios to run over and over again to bypass 1st level).
That might not be much of an issue when running online; I'm sure there'd be no lack of players for those games. However, in a face-to-face setting, dedicating what could be limited table space in your FLGS to run the same series of scenarios or modules over and over again could cause the game to stagnate. And, I imagine, eventually it'd be difficult to find players who hadn't played them all.
If someone is both organizing and GMing a game (as I imagine is the case with online play), I can understand how someone who would get unlimited credit for running a handful of scenarios repeatedly would GM more.
In a face-to-face setting at your FLGS, where the scenarios are more likely to be chosen by someone other than the GM, the chance that a GM can't be found because everyone has run the scenario and won't run again for no credit is probably nonexistent.
|
|
I guess I will just have to respectfully disagree. I know there are times when it is difficult to find GMs to cover tables. This is fact. I know there are people that would GM more if they got credit for it. This is also fact. Those two points are absolutely undeniable. Whether the second point would solve the first point is still debatable. I think it would help. Opinions may differ.
|
|
I guess I will just have to respectfully disagree. I know there are times when it is difficult to find GMs to cover tables. This is fact. I know there are people that would GM more if they got credit for it. This is also fact. Those two points are absolutely undeniable. Whether the second point would solve the first point is still debatable. I think it would help. Opinions may differ.
Yes. Agreed to disagree. I cannot deny your two assertions of fact. I just don't think the relationship between the two is as linked as you believe and I doubt (though I am not certain) that unlimited GM replays would help. But I appreciate the civil discourse.
|
|
I guess I will just have to respectfully disagree. I know there are times when it is difficult to find GMs to cover tables. This is fact. I know there are people that would GM more if they got credit for it. This is also fact. Those two points are absolutely undeniable. Whether the second point would solve the first point is still debatable. I think it would help. Opinions may differ.
Ok, what the heck is going on that they have to run the SAME scenario again?
|
|
I think it's in reference to the amount of time it takes to prep a table to run online. One of the reasons I haven't run online is that I haven't been able to put together the time to sit down and build a table with all the macros and dynamic lighting and things I know I'd need to do to make it right. I'm guessing the sentiment is that once a table is built, the GM could use it multiple times, but they aren't getting (chronicle) credit for doing so.
That is not my sentiment or what's been stopping me, but I'm guessing it's part of the consideration for the GMs that do run online.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Northwestern Indiana
|
Sometimes, I will run a scenario I like or that has a good theme for a group of players who have not played it before. (In October, I tend to do a lot of horror themed adventures.) I do see some GMs having a prepared mod in their backpack in case a GM does not show.
Personally, I am not concerned with credit for my characters if I am running an adventure again. However, perhaps there can be a compromise solution that gives GMs a bonus if they run a scenario again or if a venue is trying to recruit GMs. Maybe just allow the full xp, prestige points and gold. I know that there is some legitimate concern for magic items and boons. So, perhaps a bonus on a skill check or save might be a good idea. (So, for Among the Living, maybe a bonus to Knowledge, Religion checks when dealing with the Cult of Zyphus?)
I think the key question we should ask is if the rules of PFS are helping players and GMs to have fun. It is important to recruit new GMs, as people may move on from GMing. People's lives change, so venues can lose GMs.
More than anything else, let's keep the dialog here going.
|
|
I think it's in reference to the amount of time it takes to prep a table to run online. One of the reasons I haven't run online is that I haven't been able to put together the time to sit down and build a table with all the macros and dynamic lighting and things I know I'd need to do to make it right. I'm guessing the sentiment is that once a table is built, the GM could use it multiple times, but they aren't getting (chronicle) credit for doing so.
Here's another thought (again, only half-serious): What if we created two more separate campaigns (in addition to the Society Roleplaying and Core campaigns): an Online Society Roleplaying campaign and an Online Core campaign? Doing so would double both play and GM opportunities. And, given the difficulties involved in setting up an initial run of a scenario, what if we allowed unlimited GM credit in those campaigns only?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
—GM Stars Boon Sheet: This is a perfect example of a reward that isn't referenced anywhere. Its not in the GM Rewards section, and no one ever talks about it. Furthermore, the file doesn't even talk about rules regarding its application—I don't know if I can put one boon per character, or one boon once on one character. Not only that, but they're star based so like GM stars they don't offer positive reinforcement for getting someone new to try GMing.
And other stuff.....
I thought the former was clearly indicated in the GOP. It isn't, or at least not that I could find. I'll message our Guide team to ensure this gets included in the next version of the guide.
And as for the rest, fair point. Introducing people to GMing is one of the biggest challenges we, as a collective group, face. The GM who won't GM the same scenario twice still contributes to the community as a whole (though IMHO a bit selfish). The bonus for running the same scenario more than once is that you know the scenario and prep is at a minimum. Allowing GMs to apply credit for every scenario they run will still not reward players for trying their hand at GMing.
On a bit of an aside, I am truly blessed with one of the best PFS communities in the world, in terms of player base who is willing to GM, as well as new players who wish to GM. I set the expectation with every player that they need to GM. Not right away, but after some time, it is expected that they give back to the community. After all, someone ran the scenario for them, so in time, they need to run the scenario for the next new player.
On that note, we run a modified GM101 frequently and have two new GMs running their first games in a couple weeks (yay!).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Northwestern Indiana
|
I think it's in reference to the amount of time it takes to prep a table to run online. One of the reasons I haven't run online is that I haven't been able to put together the time to sit down and build a table with all the macros and dynamic lighting and things I know I'd need to do to make it right. I'm guessing the sentiment is that once a table is built, the GM could use it multiple times, but they aren't getting (chronicle) credit for doing so.Here's another thought (again, only half-serious): What if we created a third separate campaign (in addition to the Society Roleplaying and Core campaigns) for online play. Doing so would increase both play and GM opportunities by a third. And, given the difficulties involved in setting up an initial run of a scenario, what if we allowed unlimited GM credit in that campaign only?
May I ask what it would be called and, more importantly, the rationale behind such a campaign? I understand the logic of having the Core campaign and the RPG campaign.
Add to the fact that Paizo will likely have an organized campaign for Starfinder, would we be asking the folks at Paizo to do too much by setting up yet another campaign?
|
|
Someone mentioned a page or two back a system that allowed GMs the option of running scenarios extra times equal to the number of GM stars they have. Put together enough scenarios to become a 1 star GM, and you can run all those scenarios a second time. Mix in some new scenarios and you get your second star and can run all those scenarios a third time for credit. Mix in some new ones again and soon you get your third star. By this point the extrinsic incentives are less important and the intrinsic incentives will start to take over. This makes sense to me.
|
|
May I ask what it would be called and, more importantly, the rationale behind such a campaign?1) A Not-So-Good Idea? A Half-Baked Plan?
2) To keep the peanut butter out of the chocolate?;-)
Yeah, I'm not a fan even jokingly of adding a third campaign to the mix. I think most people who play online mix online and face to face play.
It would be great if Paizo could come up with some way to officially support pre-built tables online. I was hoping Gamespace might lead to that, but I don' think that project's been active for a couple of years now. Anyway, that's a separate issue.
Again, personally, I don't know what the best option is. For encouraging new GMs, a New GM boon similar to the recently created New Player boon might help convince a few people to give it a shot. I'm not sure.
If it's scenario I enjoy, then I enjoy GMing it more than once. And I feel like subsequent sessions have gone smoother. I think I've run Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment 5 or 6 times now. I've run Prince of Augustana maybe 3 times. That's partly because it's extremely easy to prep/run, but I do have fun with the main NPC in that scenario. I would gladly run Bid for Alabastrine a second or third time.
All that being said, I've never used a GM-star replay to play or GM a scenario a second time for credit. I'll likely do that at some point for a second play through Eyes, but other than that, I don't really feel like I need the extra chronicle sheets.
|
|
There's also the"special"scenarios, like the aspis pregen ones. I'm debating whether to use my 1 star to replay the first one since my group suffered a tpk on it. And apparently, even gm'ing a scenario with a related reward to it, you're denied the special boon/reward. Would unlimited replays of it, or the kobold, or the higher level goblin scenarios be that disruptive?
|
Venture-Captain, Minnesota
|
Kifaru & Earl --
You're both local to me. I want you to know that I'd welcome you both time and again as GMs at Dreamers. (Yes, Earl, I know you just GMed for us, but I'm greedy!!)
Kifaru, can we incentivize things more for you? We've got friendly players, a fun small venue, and would love to have you do a scenario or two for us! I'd be happy to buy a scenario for you, or get you a table of fun players to make the transition easier. Come to think of it, can we convince you to GM at a few cons for us? We would love to nab you as a Convergence GM. We can work with you and figure out what scenarios would work for both you and us.
Alexander --
I feel like I should totally make an alias for Jenny Always GM now! Thanks for the laugh!
Hmm
|
|
Kifaru & Earl --
You're both local to me. I want you to know that I'd welcome you both time and again as GMs at Dreamers. (Yes, Earl, I know you just GMed for us, but I'm greedy!!)
Kifaru, can we incentivize things more for you? We've got friendly players, a fun small venue, and would love to have you do a scenario or two for us! I'd be happy to buy a scenario for you, or get you a table of fun players to make the transition easier. Come to think of it, can we convince you to GM at a few cons for us? We would love to nab you as a Convergence GM. We can work with you and figure out what scenarios would work for both you and us.
Alexander --
I feel like I should totally make an alias for Jenny Always GM now! Thanks for the laugh!
Hmm
I love Dreamers. I did some of my first PFS games there. My only Non-Online game I ever GMed was there. I was coming down with the flue and was stoned out of my mind on cold medicine but didn't want to bail out on my first shot at GMing. The entire experience was all a bit of a blur. All I really remember is a demon and a bunch of panicked faces when CLW wands wouldn't stop the bleeding. Haha! Good times.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just want to let people know where I'm coming from on this issue. I've spent the past 20 years working in the field of psychology. The vast majority of this time was spent on psych wards and maximum security psych hospitals. My primary focus has been on behavior modification.
I've built my career on shaping behavior. Small incentives can be used to build large changes in behavior. Small barriers, much smaller than we realize, can be major hurdles to desired behavior. When I look at the incentive system as it relates to encouraging new GM's, I see a system that is designed to discourage the recruitment of new GMs.
The reward for working hard and learning to run a scenario, is that the next to you run it you get nothing. You are told to be grateful you get to do it for nothing, and the alternative is to start from scratch learning a new scenario so you can get rewarded once for than one and then get nothing for any additional times you do it.
This is a system designed to actively reduce the number of people willing to start GMing. I enjoy PFS very much. It's my favorite hobby, and I'd like to see it flourish. And I think a few minor tweaks to the GM reward system would help with that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Please bear with me. This is a hypothetical example with no basis in reality.
I like to play wizards. Fireball is my favorite spell. Unfortunately, I don't get that spell until I reach 5th level.
However, I can build a 5th level wizard using GM credits and the first time I bring it into play, it'll already be able to cast fireball.
But to get those GM credits, I need to run 12 unique PFS scenarios (or 4 sanctioned modules). And every time I want to build a new wizard, I have to run a completely different set of scenarios or modules.
If unlimited GM credit were available, this would be less of a problem; I'd just have to pick my set of scenarios or modules, prep them once, run them as many times as I like and build all the variations of a 5th level wizard I want.
I could schedule these games at my house and recruit players on my own, but eventually, I'll run out of people to invite. So I'll turn to my FLGS. I'll tell that store's event coordinator I want to GM and I'll let them know exactly what I want to run. I'll keep doing that until I've GMed through my cycle of scenarios, then I'll start again. How many times can I do that before I exhaust my player base? Once I begin to have trouble finding players for my scenarios and modules, where do I turn?
If I GMed online games, I'm certain I'd always be able to recruit players regardless of the scenario or module I'm running and I doubt I'd ever exhaust that player base. I'd be able to build all my wizards, then take them out to play at local game days or conventions. And I'm still doing my fair share of GMing.
But, at my FLGS, I can't always play when I want because there aren't always enough GMs. Sometimes I get wait-listed for a game because they can't open enough tables; sometimes the game gets cancelled because a GM is never found. I could step up and volunteer to GM, but the event coordinator won't schedule any of the scenarios or modules I run and, even if they did, everyone's already played them.
The point I'm trying to make (in a convoluted and roundabout way which has probably failed) is that by removing myself from running most scenarios and concentrating on a select few, I'm actually doing a disservice to the community. Yes, I'm GMing online more. But those games are initiated by me. I'm the GM and I'm recruiting players for a game I know will happen. The game at my FLGS that has players, but no GM? Unlimited GM credit isn't addressing that issue unless every player who could GM it already has and won't again unless it's for credit. And I believe there are far more players who haven't GMed it, but won't step forward.
I'm all for an incentive that will get players to move from their side of the screen to the other, but I do not believe that incentive is unlimited GM credit.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
The actual reason GM credit exists is to prevent someone who GMs more often in a small community to get too far behind his/her community members.
It was not meant for people so skip playing their character certain levels. (Maybe level 1 being the exception, but that's why we have the evergreens.)
|
|
I think our problem is that we have vastly different goals. I want more people GMing and more people being able to play.
It is clear to me that more people would be willing to GM more often if there was some sort of incentive to. You say that is not the case, but I know I would. I've personally talked to people who say they would. A number of posters on this board say they would. I think it's pretty fairly established that more incentive would equal more GMs running more games.
But my goals are not the same as everyone elses. There is a chance this would disrupt the system. There is a chance that established GMs may not always be able to have the pick of tables they get to run. There are risks, but I think they are minor. And as I mentioned in one of my ealier posts, this is pretty much all upside. The biggest risk is .......... some people may GM more?
|
|
It is clear to me that more people would be willing to GM more often if there was some sort of incentive to.
What I thought I'd heard you say is that more people would be willing to rerun a scenario if unlimited GM credit were available. If that's not what you're saying, I apologize; we're actually on the same page then. I thought I'd made my position clear that some sort of new incentive could help entice players to pick up the GM dice. I just don't see how unlimited GM credit grows the GM ranks. Unlimited GM credit means nothing to the first time GM and won't help create new GMs.
I think our impasse is that I'm looking at increasing the number of new GMs and you're looking at getting existing GMs back to rerun scenarios.
And because this thread's topic is Unlimited GM Credits, I'm expressing my inability to support such a change and trying to explain why.
I'm not opposing GM incentives in general; just this one specifically.
|
|
Seeing as I had clearly described the type of incentive I think would be useful in at least a dozen earlier posts, I felt it unnecessary to explain at length the type of incentive I meant. But, for the sake of clarity, I will reiterate it for you. I was referring to allowing credit for GMs for running a scenario more than once. I probably would not endorse fully unlimited GM replays, but some sort of limited replays, possibly tied to GM stars. I hope this clarifies things.
|
|
I interesting. I had a lot more written for that last post, but it got eaten by the internet gods.
The quick version is that I think this change would be most beneficial for new GMs. I don't think it would make many people that are not interested in GMing suddenly start running games. I think it would be an excellent encouragement for the people who have GMed a game or three and gave it up as too much hassle.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I probably would not endorse fully unlimited GM replays, but some sort of limited replays, possibly tied to GM stars.
Such a thing already exists.
I think it would be an excellent encouragement for the people who have GMed a game or three and gave it up as too much hassle.
If someone finds GMing too much of a hassle, I can't think of any incentive that would bring them back to the table.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone finds GMing too much of a hassle, I can't think of any incentive that would bring them back to the table.
Well then, sit right down and I'll tell you about one. You see, it's called GM replays with credit. You know all that work you just did prepping for that game, well guess what, you can run that game a second time and you'll get PFS credit the second time you run it too!!!! No seriously! You actually get credit for the game just like all the players that sat at the table. Yes, I know. It's revolutionary. GMs actually receiving credit like ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS AT THE TABLE!!!! This crazy world that we live in. What will they think of next?
|
What if we gave a GM chronicle sheet as you you currently get the first time when you ran a scenario. Then you get one with full gold and no boons or items the second time. Maybe a third one if you run the same scenario 5 times? Then that's it, no more.
I think that five runs of a scenario would probably saturate the demand, regardless of how much people want to run the same thing and not have to prep another scenario. They would probably be sick of it at that point TBH.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not interested in seeing things change so that GM credit is out of alignment with player credit.
If a GM wishes to not run an adventure more than once due to lack of credit, despite all the other incentives, then that is their right. Saying that they are being *punished* for having to prep an adventure and only get to run it once is a bit over the top. I see the fact that it's already prepped as one of the incentives, but if credit is stopping you from offering that game again, so be it. Let someone else run it who will have more interest in it (whether it's because they'll actually get credit or merely because they truly enjoy GMing is a moot point).
But this circular argument is just as bad as the unlimited player credit argument and reeks of entitlement. There is no need to act this way.
|
|
I'm not interested in seeing things change so that GM credit is out of alignment with player credit.
If a GM wishes to not run an adventure more than once due to lack of credit, despite all the other incentives, then that is their right. Saying that they are being *punished* for having to prep an adventure and only get to run it once is a bit over the top. I see the fact that it's already prepped as one of the incentives, but if credit is stopping you from offering that game again, so be it. Let someone else run it who will have more interest in it (whether it's because they'll actually get credit or merely because they truly enjoy GMing is a moot point).
But this circular argument is just as bad as the unlimited player credit argument and reeks of entitlement. There is no need to act this way.
I've spent money printing maps. I've spent money buying maps. I've spent money buying the scenario. I've spent my time prepping the scenario and getting any extras I want in place and/or creating terrain specifically for this scenario to provide an awesome experience. The very least that could be done is to let me get credit again for everything I've expended and put my time/expertise back into play for this scenario.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really fascinated by the fact that it is almost entirely 0-2 star GMs who are advocating for unlimited GM chronicles while those with 4 or 5 are mostly opposed or indifferent. I propose two hypotheses for why this is true:
1. As people get more stars (indicating more GMing experience) they care less and less about personally gaining chronicle credit.
2. People who care more about the chronicle credit get frustrated with the current reward system and tend to give up GMing before reaching 60 tables as a GM.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Baltic
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm really fascinated by the fact that it is almost entirely 0-2 star GMs who are advocating for unlimited GM chronicles while those with 4 or 5 are mostly opposed or indifferent. I propose two hypothesis for why this is true:
1. As people get more stars (indicating more GMing experience) they care less and less about personally gaining chronicle credit.
2. People who care more about the chronicle credit get frustrated with the current reward system and tend to give up GMing before reaching 60 tables as a GM.
3. The people with more stars have been around longer, have more experience running PFS and possibly more insight what is good/bad for the campaign.
|
|
3. The people with more stars have been around longer, have more experience running PFS and possibly more insight what is good/bad for the campaign.I'm really fascinated by the fact that it is almost entirely 0-2 star GMs who are advocating for unlimited GM chronicles while those with 4 or 5 are mostly opposed or indifferent. I propose two hypothesis for why this is true:
1. As people get more stars (indicating more GMing experience) they care less and less about personally gaining chronicle credit.
2. People who care more about the chronicle credit get frustrated with the current reward system and tend to give up GMing before reaching 60 tables as a GM.
I considered adding that option but that doesn't account for the large percentage of indifference in the 4/5 star ranks as well as those opposed to it. Probably slightly more tilted towards indifference. I think I may have accidentally showed my bias with my wording. As did you :)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I've spent money printing maps. I've spent money buying maps. I've spent money buying the scenario. I've spent my time prepping the scenario and getting any extras I want in place and/or creating terrain specifically for this scenario to provide an awesome experience. The very least that could be done is to let me get credit again for everything I've expended and put my time/expertise back into play for this scenario.I'm not interested in seeing things change so that GM credit is out of alignment with player credit.
If a GM wishes to not run an adventure more than once due to lack of credit, despite all the other incentives, then that is their right. Saying that they are being *punished* for having to prep an adventure and only get to run it once is a bit over the top. I see the fact that it's already prepped as one of the incentives, but if credit is stopping you from offering that game again, so be it. Let someone else run it who will have more interest in it (whether it's because they'll actually get credit or merely because they truly enjoy GMing is a moot point).
But this circular argument is just as bad as the unlimited player credit argument and reeks of entitlement. There is no need to act this way.
You've done all those things and have already been rewarded for it with GM credit.
What you're asking for is being rewarded again for running a scenario while you don't have to do all these things again. You don't have to put in quite as much work, so why should you get the same rewards?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
Actually, there is at least one reward for running a scenario again. It counts towards GM stars.
Evergreens you can run over and over again for full credit as a GM.
As for why those with more stars may have different opinions on this, I suspect it is a combination of not putting the same value on GM credit and having a lot more experience.
There have been a number of reasonable arguments on both sides of this. Some scenarios take much more effort to run, and there is value in GMing them multiple times since you (hopefully) are able to give a better experience. On the other hand, there certainly is a potential problem with a GM flooding the area with the scenario.
At this point, I don't think that allowing unlimited GM credit for rerunning a scenario is a good idea. I do think that allowing the GM to get full XP, gold and PP but not any items or boons could work for a limited number of times but am not sure if that would be enough incentive to make a difference.
The biggest thing I took away from this is that online needs a better way to extract the maps and other digital materials required to run a scenario -- especially those with custom maps.
Perhaps a better discussion would be how can we reduce the amount of effort required to run scenarios online?
|
|
I considered adding that option but that doesn't account for the large percentage of indifference in the 4/5 star ranks as well as those opposed to it. Probably slightly more tilted towards indifference. I think I may have accidentally showed my bias with my wording. As did you :)3. The people with more stars have been around longer, have more experience running PFS and possibly more insight what is good/bad for the campaign.I'm really fascinated by the fact that it is almost entirely 0-2 star GMs who are advocating for unlimited GM chronicles while those with 4 or 5 are mostly opposed or indifferent. I propose two hypothesis for why this is true:
1. As people get more stars (indicating more GMing experience) they care less and less about personally gaining chronicle credit.
2. People who care more about the chronicle credit get frustrated with the current reward system and tend to give up GMing before reaching 60 tables as a GM.
I think a more likely, and less biased, number 3 is that people with more stars got there under the current system, so they obviously weren't driven away by the lack of additional chronicle sheets. Anyone who was would not have made it to 4 or 5 stars.
I'm right in the middle, but I'm not generally in favor of unlimited credit. Of course, even though I've only made it to 3 stars (and just barely), I've been around since 2012. Lack of GM chronicles is not what made me slow down with my GMing. Lack of time and not being able to reliably make gamedays are more the issues.
My advice to Kifaru and other new GMs who want to prep a handful of scenarios and reuse them is to stick to the repeatable scenarios initially. You can get chronicles for them as much as you want, and you can run them at the same location without having to worry about running out of players who can play them. There's enough variety now between In Service to Lore, Master of the Fallen Fortress, the three tier 1-2 scenarios, level 1 modules, tier 1-2 AP sections, the two quest series, and two tier 1-2 Goblin modules that multiple people in the same area can pick different scenarios and not overlap.
If anything, I'd think about releasing more repeatable scenarios. Publishing 1 a year is good, and if they keep up with publishing a quest series per year, that will help, too. I'd really like to see the work done to First Steps 2 & 3 to be able to make them legal again, as I think both worked fine as standalone scenarios without all the faction tie-in stuff.
That doesn't solve the issue for someone who knows the rules well and wants to jump in GMing higher level content, but for a first time GM, I'd recommend sticking to low-tier scenarios anyway.
|
|
Perhaps a better discussion would be how can we reduce the amount of effort required to run scenarios online?
Unfortunately that's a question that has been asked several times before and always comes down to the current policies and licensing agreements of Paizo, Inc.
You are allowed to use products you own such as maps for "personal use" such as GMing a scenario. However sharing maps is a violation of copyright law. Sharing tokens and macros is possible but has to be handled with great delicacy (for example you can't share a token using Paizo's artwork for a ghoul but you can draw your own original artwork and give it away). You also need to make sure the name itself isn't Paizo Intellectual Property.
The easiest solution (from the players' point of view) is for Paizo to license the scenarios to one or more Virtual Tabletop producers and allow them to sell a complete scenario with all encounters pre-programmed and mapped directly to GMs. However there's a lot of impacts such a decision would have on the business side and so far Paizo has elected not to go that route.
But that's off-topic :)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On evergreens:
I've played Wisp a few times.
I've played Compact twice, once PbP, once at a table at a convention, have prepped once to run it.
Played Silverhex three times, completed entire run twice.
Truth be told, they're kind of wearing on me from a 'play' perspective, and I'm terrified that might be reflected if I run it for a table of new players to the campaign?
Knowing that it's a possibility, I can watch for it, but still, I'm *aware* of this. There may be GMs who are not.
In addition:
Newer GMs CANNOT get physical access to maps to certain scenarios for 'evergreen' scenarios OR there's these nice-looking but *unique* maps for the scenarios that either require a lot of time drawing out (imo) for the unskilled or expenditure of resources.
I suspect that at least some irritation of 'new GMs' may stem from that.
Newer scenarios that are 'evergreen' should have assets in them that are available *to buy* , maybe 'print on request' or some such?
I understand the economics behind it, but it is yet another hurdle that can slow and impair play and make potential first experiences with PFS play look clumsy, unprofessional, and awkward. This being instead of crisp, professional,and well-oiled.