Proposed Rule Change for Season 8: Unlimited GM Credits


Pathfinder Society

251 to 300 of 462 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

grandpoobah wrote:

Possibly unrelated to the original post, but I had a comment regarding Faction Journal Cards (GM Credit):

The current Faction Journal Cards (Season 6+7) require you to GM "for credit" and attach the appropriate sheet to the character. This is (in practice) very difficult for me to achieve, despite GMng regularly. Mostly this is because I am GMng for no credit, or GMng something in a different tier than the relevant PC.

This seems like a problem that affects long-time GMs (As a 4-star GM, I've GM'd most of Season 1-6 for credit at this point).

Can we modify the Faction Journal Cards (in Season 8+) to give an option to write "GM Faction Credit" on a chronicle - and the chronicle can be at any Tier or with or without credit (kind of like the expanded Narrative Boon)? Also, do we even need such documentation? I've seen no (enforceable) documentation requirement on the other Faction Journal Card boxes.

Hopefully someone more experienced than I am should be able to come up with an intelligent way to write that on a Faction Journal Card in 20 words or less.

** spoiler omitted **

I had actually suggested something like that two pages ago...

SCPRedMage wrote:
At the very least, how about being able to assign a 0xp/gp/pp/boons chronicle to a character, allowing for faction journal card GM goals to be advanced?

...but it got ignored, in favor of attacking the second half of the post, which argued that making someone who doesn't go to many cons choose between race boons or Expanded Narrative made Expanded Narrative a rather unattractive option.

So, revised suggestion: allow GMs to take a "no reward" chronicle, regardless of how many times they've GMed a scenario (but still respecting the one-chronicle-per-character rule). This allows GMs to advance their FJCs, even if they've run it before, and gives GMs who want to avoid giant balls of GM credit an out, even if it's the first time they've run it.

Grand Lodge 2/5

Lau Bannenberg wrote:
claudekennilol wrote:
Drogon wrote:

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.

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?

So your counter to my argument is that my money/time is worth the reward that I received? If that's the case, then why GM at all because I'm getting the same reward as if I played?

Sovereign Court Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

4 people marked this as a favorite.

There are lots of rewards for GMing something again. They've already all been listed throughout this thread multiple times, so I won't get into it again, but suffice to say that if credit is all you're after you have plenty of options and there is no need to GM something more than once. It's a stance I certainly don't understand, but you're allowed to take it.

As to the disparity of 4- and 5-star GMs pooh-poohing this idea vs the 1- and 2-stars lauding it, I think it comes down to what Auke said: Personally, I have long experience in the campaign (and in other campaigns), and am absolutely opposed to adding in something that is so obviously disproportionate to what players get. The moment something like this is realized the players who want unlimited replay will cry foul and be impossible to placate - rightfully so, as one group being entitled to something another group cannot have is the worst position to put a system in.

And the day the unlimited replay proponents are on the right side of the argument will be a bad day, indeed.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ayep. What Drogon said.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

There's also the fact that if people don't like GMing, if they don't get an intrinsic rewards for GMing, then they shouldn't be doing it.

Yeah, perhaps the campaign needs more GMs. But all of us, players and GMs alike, are doing this as a hobby. If it's not fun, two things happen. Eventually, we stop doing it, regardless of what other rewards there are. But, before that, we're probably not doing it very well, and the fact that we aren't enjoying it is likely pulling down other people.

An incentive system that gets people to GM who otherwise would not want to is not a good incentive system. The current incentive system is enough so that you don't feel like you're sacrificing something to GM. If you do it and like it, experience shows that you'll keep doing it without more incentives. (The number of 4 and 5 star -- even 3 star -- GMs who say that they don't need, or even don't want, more GM credit is a testament to this. It's the very rare 4 or 5 star GM who sill say otherwise.)

By the time I had two stars, I was already feeling like I was getting too much GM credit for my charcters and not playing them enough. Now that I have four stars, I'm more interested in my table count and the push to five stars than I am in GM credit. Yeah, I still take GM credit when I run something for the first (or maybe second) time, but I'd GM without it, and it doesn't hold me back at all from rerunning scenarios.

So, nothing needs to change with regard to GM credits. There's no upside (it won't really solve the problem except maybe to get a few people who don't really like GMing to do it a little bit more, which isn't a good thing), and there's plenty of downside that folks have mentioned.

It *would* be nice to reduce the prep time needed for running a game online. However, when you do it a lot, you actually get pretty fast at it. And, truth to be told, you don't *have* to have macros and character sheets and dynamic lighting for everything. I usually like to myself, yes. Lots of people do. But it's not completely necessary. If you get the maps and tokens uploaded, you can roll manually and look at the character sheets to figure out what happens -- you know, just like you do when you GM face-to-face.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

Kevin Willis wrote:

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.

Okay, so I'm a 2 star GM. I'm trying to decide which camp I'm in. I'm all for incentivizing GMs, but my main concern with the proposal is making sure that the people in my area not only have GMs to run scenarios but also have new scenarios to play. I worry about saturation if the same scenarios get run over and over.

Maybe it's not a matter of number of stars here, but a matter of whether you have a single event perspective or a wider organizational perspective. It's not just my table and my players that I worry about. I want PFS to be great at my location, no matter how many tables we're running. I also want PFS to be great at other Minnesota locations, because my players hop from store to store. I want there to be an ability for all my players to love their PFS experience no matter where they go, because having more play locations elsewhere grows the player base at my location.

___

Having GMs incentivized to run a diversity of scenarios is good from a campaign-wide perspective. Having more GMs running over all is equally important. Maybe we should be looking at other ways to help Players step up? I think that Bret had a great point that we may be trying to solve the wrong problem here.

Should we start a new thread on the issue of making GM prep easier for online folks? Could there be an extension of PFS shared GM prep online where people share their online table macros? Let's take this to a new thread and brain storm this!

Hmm

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵

Evergreens are written to be run multiple times, which means tehre won't be anything on there so overpowerful that every dm is going to want to run it to put it on their characters. 4 and 5 star dms have seen the higher level scenarios, know what the really good cookies are, and what people would do if they could run unlimited sessions and put them on every character.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Evergreens are written to be run multiple times, which means tehre won't be anything on there so overpowerful that every dm is going to want to run it to put it on their characters. 4 and 5 star dms have seen the higher level scenarios, know what the really good cookies are, and what people would do if they could run unlimited sessions and put them on every character.

I think most of the people that have been advocating GM credit for additional replays have also believed the replays should be "generic". By that I mean no boons, items or other special things. Pretty much just a straight 1XP 2PP and standard gold. Personally I think it should be slightly reduced from that and only give 1 XP 1.5 PP and 80%-90% Gold.

5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Online aka Magabeus

claudekennilol wrote:
If that's the case, then why GM at all because I'm getting the same reward as if I played?

You are getting a completely different reward: you get to experience how the scenario comes to life under your hands and you also have to deal with everything the players throw at you, which might not be a reward at all times ;-).

Then you get all the background information that the writer put into the scenario, which is often a lot more than the players are getting.

Being able to pick which PC will get the chronicle (when GM'ing the scenario for the first time) is icing on the cake.

4/5 Venture-Agent, Minnesota—St. Louis Park aka BretI

Kifaru wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Evergreens are written to be run multiple times, which means tehre won't be anything on there so overpowerful that every dm is going to want to run it to put it on their characters. 4 and 5 star dms have seen the higher level scenarios, know what the really good cookies are, and what people would do if they could run unlimited sessions and put them on every character.
I think most of the people that have been advocating GM credit for additional replays have also believed the replays should be "generic". By that I mean no boons, items or other special things. Pretty much just a straight 1XP 2PP and standard gold. Personally I think it should be slightly reduced from that and only give 1 XP 1.5 PP and 80%-90% Gold.

I often slow-track my GM credits once the character is to level 3. How would the reduced rewards work for slow-track?

Taking your numbers for the case of a tier 1-2 scenario, 90% gold on 500 gold would be 450 gp, 80% would be 400 gp. At that point you are likely doing worse than the player that went through it successfully and spent resources. I would rather not take credit at that point.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
An incentive system that gets people to GM who otherwise would not want to is not a good incentive system.

Actually that is exactly what an incentive system does.

I think the misunderstanding is the belief that wanting to GM is a dichotomous thing. That is to say, one either 100% wants to GM or 100% doesn't want to GM. In reality, nearly every player at least considers GMing, but for one reason or another does not. Nearly every player wants to GM as some level, but the desire is not strong enough to overcome the impediments. I'm advocating a system that gives a little extra bump to increase the odds.

Let me give you an example. There is a module that I have received a significant number of requests to run. Now this is a module that does not get run very often. I've been trying to play it for about two years and have never been able to get in on a game. The words I have heard used to describe it include "unpleasant" and "unsatisfying", but it is part of a series of modules that many players would like to complete. I had been kicking around the idea of running it for a while. I consulted with a Venture Captain and a Lieutenant, and they both told be to avoid running it because "It wasn't worth it."

I was asked again recently by a group of players to run the module. Now, I'm going to GenCon in a few weeks and I have a Buffer Build character I would like to bring. It hands out feats and saving throws and all sorts of fun to it's allies, but is pretty unplayable at low levels. I just wont have time to get him played enough to use him at GenCon. So I figured "What the heck, I'll run it." The players get their game and I may be able to play my character at GenCon. Everybody wins. If I'd have run it before I wouldn't be getting credit for it and I probably wouldn't be running this module tomorrow. Everybody loses.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

Kifaru, which module is it? I'm dying to know now...

Feel free to put your answer under a spoiler.

I think you're right that there is no real dichotomy here. By asking players directly, "Hey would you like to GM for us?" I can get a lot of people to try out GMing. I try to make it easy for people to at least give GMing a shot.

My assumption is that I'll have a few hard core GMs, a few people who like to GM sometimes and play sometimes, and a bunch of people who want to play most of the time but don't mind the idea of GMing once every couple of months to help us out.

I regard Dreamers as a GM Nursery. We help new GMs make the transition. If they like it, they frequently travel elsewhere and GM there too, so it means more GMs elsewhere. But a lot of this involves me asking each person one-on-one.

If I can figure a way to make this even easier... I'd love to do that. That's part of the reason why I'm so interested in this conversation. The more casual GMs we have, the more players we'll have that will appreciate what goes into GMing. Also more casual GMs means that the hard core GMs get breaks and get to play every so often, meaning that they don't burn out!

Hmm

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

...but you'd have run it before and woud have gotten credit then. In fact, perhaps the same people who are playing now might have played it before; who knows.

There's also the fact that everybody loses because of the damage to the campaign that will happen longer term by expanding GM creidt. You seem to be neglecting that; you haven't addressed it at all.

And -- I disagree that an incentive that gets people to GM who don't really want to is the goal, because I believe that people who don't want to be GMing are probably not going to be on average as good as people who want to be doing it. If people are GMing because they are (effectively) boon farming, or gold farming, you'll have phone-in GMing that's not the GMing that the campaign needs. It'll be along the line of the crap we saw with aasimarpalooza a couple of years ago. When there are too many "loot for your character" awards that encourage people to do things that they wouldn't want to be doing for the sake of the hobby, you don't get the kind of GMing that's good for the campaign long term.

Tell ya what. When you have three stars, come back and make the case again. See if your opinion has changed.

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

10 people marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
Tell ya what. When you have three stars, come back and make the case again. See if your opinion has changed.

That's a little unfair. While I appreciate that time and further experience can change views of the campaign, GM stars are not required to advocate for changes in the campaign. Arguments should be addressed, not those putting forth the arguments.

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Rob, I know where you're coming from, but even to my eyes it sounds a little dismissive. Ideas should come from EVERYONE, no matter how many stars they have.

Ninja'd by TOZ.

Hmm

Shadow Lodge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:
Ninja'd by TOZ.

Wopah! *ninja flipout*

Grand Lodge 5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

1 person marked this as a favorite.

No, you'd know it if I flipped you, TOZ! Though I think most of the time, you flip yourself for the fun of it.

Hmm

Grand Lodge 5/5 Venture-Agent, Florida—Melbourne aka trollbill

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kevin Willis wrote:


1. As people get more stars (indicating more GMing experience) they care less and less about personally gaining chronicle credit.

Well I can certainly vouch for the fact that the more GM Chronicles I get, the less I care about getting them. I usually only use them for two things these days:

1) Starting characters at level 2, or at least with 1 Wand of CLW in their inventory.
2) Leveling up characters to a particular level band when I am lacking in that band.

It may be true that unlimited chronicles may motivate lower star GMs but they have an opposite effect on me, as I don't really want the temptation to apply these and play the character even less. I would much rather see something that motivated GMs regardless of stars, not just a limited subset.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Pennsylvania—King of Prussia aka Alexander Augunas

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
rknop wrote:
Tell ya what. When you have three stars, come back and make the case again. See if your opinion has changed.
That's a little unfair. While I appreciate that time and further experience can change views of the campaign, GM stars are not required to advocate for changes in the campaign. Arguments should be addressed, not those putting forth the arguments.

This is *the* most important post in the past few pages of this thread. There are *tons* of 4 and 5 Star GMs across the forums who think that they can use their number of games run to shut down ideas and opinions on this thread. That's the absolute worse way to wield those "bragging rights." (Its even worse if you're a VO and you're doing that.)

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Superscriber

I'm sorry - I didn't want to come back as dismissive. I *did* address the argument (in the long post before the line at the end). But, I agree with those who have pointed out that it's notable that generally you see those more experienced with the campaign setting against more GM credit, and those arguing for it easily having more than 6 full seasons worth of scenarios they could still GM for credit. This means that the evidence shows that once it really starts to matter (people with 3+ stars are the ones must likely to have rerunning be a substantial fraction of their GMing), additional character credit isn't a meaningful incentive.

I suspect that as somebody has GMed more, their views are more likely to change away from being in favor of expanded GM credit.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
rknop wrote:
Tell ya what. When you have three stars, come back and make the case again. See if your opinion has changed.
That's a little unfair. While I appreciate that time and further experience can change views of the campaign, GM stars are not required to advocate for changes in the campaign. Arguments should be addressed, not those putting forth the arguments.
This is *the* most important post in the past few pages of this thread. There are *tons* of 4 and 5 Star GMs across the forums who think that they can use their number of games run to shut down ideas and opinions on this thread. That's the absolute worse way to wield those "bragging rights." (Its even worse if you're a VO and you're doing that.)

OK, now *that's* rather unfair. Disagreeing is not the same as "shutting down". Lots of multiple star GMs thinking the same thing is worthwhile to know, and is not shutting down opinions. Nothing is being weilded here.

Also, arguably, VOs on the average have more perspective than the rest of us. What they are saying is worth hearing, and there's nothing shameful about them expressing *their* opinions.

Lantern Lodge 5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

"Come back when you have more stars" is a bad argument for a thread about encouraging people to GM. Also, in general.

Put me down as "4 Stars and in favor of expanded rewards."

Hell, with a requirement of 5 GM chronicles per PC if you want to fill out a faction card, let alone more than one season's worth, there is now a reason to wish for more credit.

5/5

Jeff Hazuka wrote:

"Come back when you have more stars" is a bad argument for a thread about encouraging people to GM. Also, in general.

Put me down as "4 Stars and in favor of expanded rewards."

Hell, with a requirement of 5 GM chronicles per PC if you want to fill out a faction card, let alone more than one season's worth, there is now a reason to wish for more credit.

Put me down as in favour too, GM credit is great for starting new characters and I don't get tired of making them.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

The real question is, though, would it lead you to GM more than you do right now?

And, what about the drawbacks to having more GM credit, outlined by others above? (I think Drogon stated it most succinctly and strongly.)

Silver Crusade 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:

The real question is, though, would it lead you to GM more than you do right now?

I'm pretty sure it isn't possible for Andrew to GM more than he does now, not without retiring at least :-).

Shadow Lodge

rknop wrote:

The real question is, though, would it lead you to GM more than you do right now?

And, what about the drawbacks to having more GM credit, outlined by others above? (I think Drogon stated it most succinctly and strongly.)

I can't speak for anyone else, but while I couldn't say for certain that it would make me GM more often, it would certainly make me infinitely more likely to rerun something I've GMed before. Why should I run a scenario I've run already, when I can run something new that I can actually get something out of?

Sure, people will get to play either way, but it's also the difference between newer players getting an opportunity to play some of the older adventures or not. By allowing some form of reward for running a scenario a second time, GMs will be more willing to rerun some of the classic adventures, giving those who have only recently joined the campaign more opportunities to experience more of the meta-plots from years past.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, Canada—Manitoba aka Kess, Humble Servant of Abadar

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Again, we are splitting the argument here: Getting new players to GM and rewards for GMs.

Allowing credit for every game run will not create incentive for players to start GMing. That's a specific incentive rather than a general incentive. My first argument to any player in hopes of getting them to GM will never be, "you know, once you run this scenario the 2nd time, you'll still get a chronicle."

We already have general incentives for GMing: You get a chronicle (which never used to happen) and you get to actually play the scenario after you GMed it (again, waaaaay back in the day), you get star rating which allows for your star level in bonus on your (item) re-roll, you get get access to the Star Reward sheet (regardless if you like the rewards or not, it is a general reward).

The latter are the types of rewards which we should be pursuing. Small things that add up the more you GM for the campaign (which we have). If the rewards are too large, they would be imbalanced.

rknop wrote:
Also, arguably, VOs on the average have more perspective than the rest of us. What they are saying is worth hearing, and there's nothing shameful about them expressing *their* opinions.

Indeed, there is no dismissal intended. We each bring a unique perspective to the argument.

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:
The real question is, though, would it lead you to GM more than you do right now?

Not me. I've got more GM credit than I know what to do with. My goal these past few conventions has been to facilitate OTHER GMs getting table credits rather than running myself.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Baker wrote:
you get get access to the Star Reward sheet (regardless if you like the rewards or not, it is a general reward).

A bit off-topic, but saying that I find the Star Reward sheet underwhelming is probably the biggest understatement I could make, owing entirely to the fact that I can only apply it to a single character (until I get to 5 stars and 200 tables). Which character do I apply it to? If I apply it to a character now, that character will likely be retired before I earn enough stars to get any of the rewards that I would actually care about, so should I use it now, or should I hold off until I get more stars?

In all likelihood, I will never use that sheet; it is a non-reward. It's more of a taunt, really.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, Canada—Manitoba aka Kess, Humble Servant of Abadar

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rknop wrote:

The real question is, though, would it lead you to GM more than you do right now?

And, what about the drawbacks to having more GM credit, outlined by others above? (I think Drogon stated it most succinctly and strongly.)

Absolutely not. I GM because I enjoy GMing. Which is the main reason why a person should GM. You'll provide a much better experience to your players if you do. It shows, and they notice.

Drawbacks would be similar to the unlimited replay argument and its detrimental effect on the campaign as a whole.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
SCPRedMage wrote:
Why should I run a scenario I've run already, when I can run something new that I can actually get something out of?

Because you like GMing? Because it's fun to GM well, and when you GM the same thing a few times you get better at it? Because it's fun to see different groups' response to the same scenario?

None of this of course is new; all these things have already been mentioned upthread.

Yeah, sure, perhaps for some people, you need the reward to make it worth it. Will they really stick with GMing, though? In contrast, lots of us enjoy GMing for its own sake. And, with only a few exceptions, it seems that those who have GMed the most are perfectly willing to rerun (and revisit those classic adventures) without getting more credit. I'm really not convinced that lack of GM credit for a character is substantially reducing the amout of GMing that is going on out there. And, as Dave Baker points out, the issue is completely irrelevant to the question of getting people to give GMing a try.

2/5

Dave Baker wrote:

My first argument to any player in hopes of getting them to GM will never be, "you know, once you run this scenario the 2nd time, you'll still get a chronicle."

Go out and actually talk to a GM after they have run their first game. Ask him or her which situation would most encourage him/her to run another game.

1. Try that game again now that they have experience and get credit for it.

2. Run it again for no credit.

3. Start from scratch learning a new scenario.

Try it. See what answer you get.

5/5

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure David has done this, since he's done more to encourage new GMs in our area than almost anyone I know, and we routinely run a dozen games a week or so plus special events, game days, and our own three-day convention. How many new people have you asked to GM, Kifaru, so we can compare data?

People seem to be missing one of the rewards of GMing: community building. When I run a scenario four times, I don't bemoan only getting one Chronicle and 4 more credits towards star; I know that I have helped create a community that 24 players are part of. Those players (and the ones who play i our other GM's repeat tables) mean that we run so many games, I can't participate in even a fraction of them. I can play PFS pretty much any time I want here, and it is partly because I and a bunch of other GMs think beyond our own tables and look at the bigger picture when deciding what we run. I also like to think that our table experience is high, because we get good at running a scenario after doing it more than once, and no one runs cold or when they really don't want to.

When you GM, you build PFS in your region. That means you'll have more chances to play.

I respect the folks who want more rewards, but please, let's distinguish between *want* and *need*. I suggest the campaign doesn't *need* to allow unlimited credit, because the problems it allows will outnumber the benefits it has.

Shadow Lodge

rknop wrote:
Because you like GMing?

I prefer to play, actually; that isn't to say I dislike running, I would just rather be playing. I run because I don't think it's right for me to expect others to run for me if I'm not willing to return the favor.

rknop wrote:
Because it's fun to GM well, and when you GM the same thing a few times you get better at it?

When it comes to prep work, I tend to be pretty obsessive. In person, I use a combat manager app on a laptop, with every encounter, at every subtier, with and without the four player adjustment, saved as a separate file, making starting a combat encounter as simple as clicking a few buttons, placing the pawns I pre-selected to represent the enemies on the table, and asking the party for their initiatives. Online, I have every enemy set up as a character in Roll20, with all of their attacks, saves, etc. set up as token actions, and use API scripts to roll all of the enemies' initiatives with a single click. As part of all of that, I read the entire adventure cover to cover, and I do it again at least once more shortly before I run it.

Yes, I run it a bit better the second time around, but with the amount of prep work I do... not by that much.

rknop wrote:
Because it's fun to see different groups' response to the same scenario?

I wouldn't call that "fun". "Interesting", maybe, but "fun" isn't exactly the word I'd use. Certainly not really much of a motivator, for me.

Here's what I see happening here: you know your motivations, and you seem to think that either everyone should be like you, or else it doesn't matter. Those things you just listed as motivations you just listed for rerunning a scenario? Not one of them matter enough to me to choose rerunning a scenario over just running something new.

So again: why should I rerun Shade of Ice, when I can run something new and get my aasimar cavalier/ranger one step closer to getting that celestial griffon mount he's building towards (and is lackluster without)? Why should I rerun Shadow's Last Stand instead of getting another character past the crap that is level one? Yeah, I think new players might enjoy playing some of the other stuff, but if they're going to have fun either way, why not go the route that earns me something I care about?

I don't think we really need more incentives to get people to start running games; I think we need more incentives to get people more to run more of the stuff they've already run.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Venture-Captain, Canada—Manitoba aka Kess, Humble Servant of Abadar

Kifaru wrote:
Dave Baker wrote:

My first argument to any player in hopes of getting them to GM will never be, "you know, once you run this scenario the 2nd time, you'll still get a chronicle."

Go out and actually talk to a GM after they have run their first game. Ask him or her which situation would most encourage him/her to run another game.

1. Try that game again now that they have experience and get credit for it.

2. Run it again for no credit.

3. Start from scratch learning a new scenario.

Try it. See what answer you get.

No I've never asked those specific questions, nor do I think I would. Yes, rewards for GMing are great, but as has been said before, focusing solely on that does not build a community. Rerunning that scenario would make them better at running THAT scenario, not make them work towards becoming a better, well-rounded GM. That's not the community I'm trying to build. If cost is an issue, I'll freely lend them my hard copy and GM tools so they can run again.

After their first game, at which I try my darnedest to sit at (if not me, then a VO or someone who is a good GM and whose opinion I can trust), we discuss what went right, what went wrong, how things felt and if they'd like to work on anything in particular (or what I think they should work on). Then schedule their next game, hopefully within the next month. Something different, yet still reasonably easy to prep.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber
SCPRedMage wrote:
Here's what I see happening here: you know your motivations, and you seem to think that either everyone should be like you, or else it doesn't matter. Those things you just listed as motivations you just listed for rerunning a scenario? Not one of them matter enough to me to choose rerunning a scenario over just running something new.\

I don't think that everybody else should be like me. From what others have said, I know that these are the same motiations that motivate people who like to GM scenarios more than once. If your quetion was specifically about why you in particular should do something, then only you can answer it. If it was why one should do it (which is also written as "you" sometimes), then my answer is a valid answer. That was the question I was answering. I was not saying that you're supposed to be just like me.

If you don't like it, don't do it. It sounds like you aren't one who likes GMing enough to do a lot of it anyway.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Indiana—Hammond

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I see a lot of good will in this thread, despite disagreements.

It seems that there is some common agreement - we want to encourage more people to GM. (I joke that I GM so much in my area that my characters are often little more than accounting fictions.)

What would encourage more people to GM? If I really like a scenario or think it would work well with a group, I run it -- even if I get no character credit from doing so. (Sometimes a scenario is a lot of fun to run or fits in thematically with other scenarios.)

Perhaps each side in this debate can try to see the views of the other sides. I agree that abuse of boons can be a problem. However, I also see that sometimes an incentive can encourage good behavior. Perhaps we need to strike a balance between different proposals.

In the end, I think that we want to see PFS thrive as and organization where GMs AND players have fun. So, what would encourage more GMs and what would help make the campaign more fun, while avoiding problems that have plagued other organized play campaigns? (I sometimes jokingly called Living City by the name Living Swapmeet as one wizard I played who had crafting feats got asked to make a few things.)

As we express our opinions and explore options, lets assume that every one is coming to the discussion with a love for PFS and a desire to help it grow. Are there people who would abuse boons? Yes. However, let's assume that the people on this thread mean well and we may hit a few good solutions. I often find that I learn a lot from counterarguments, so let us give each other the benefit of the doubt.

4/5

Everyone who GMs invests something. Time to prep the scenario. Time to gather maps and miniatures. Time to travel to and from the game. Time to run the game. Perhaps money to purchase the scenario and acquire its assets. The main return on that investment is a Chronicle sheet. Yes, there are other returns: table credit towards one's star count, a check mark on a Faction Card, etc. But the main return is that Chronicle sheet and its associated experience, prestige and gold. GMing that scenario a second time increases the investment (in time, if nothing else) with no further return (and I'm only considering credit, even though I know there are other returns). Therefore, over subsequent runs of that scenario, the investment continues to increase, but the return stays the same. Over time (an astronomical amount of theoretical time), the return on investment for subsequent reruns becomes essentially zero. A not insignificant number of GMs in this thread are asking for help in increasing that ROI. They're asking for credit (a Chronicle sheet) for rerunning a scenario. They'd like to see their ROI remain constant, or at least, not diminish as rapidly as it does under the current scheme.

I can empathize with that.

These GMs believe if they could rerun a scenario for credit, they'd GM more often. And GMing more often helps grow the community.

I have made two assumptions, which may or may not be true:
1) A prime motivation for some of the GMs advocating for extra or unlimited GM credits may be the ability to get characters to certain levels without playing them by instead running the same scenarios repeatedly and advancing those characters with the resulting GM credit.
2) Some of the GMs advocating for extra or unlimited GM credits may rerun the majority of these scenarios online.

The reasons I oppose unlimited GM credit are threefold:
1) By leapfrogging over a character's "unplayable" levels, builds which might not have been viable in organized play and therefore rare, could now become commonplace.
2) Particularly "deadly" scenarios could be run repeatedly by a GM without actual risk to any character.
3) The opportunities to repeatedly rerun scenarios in one's FLGS would be limited. Therefore, I have to assume most of these reruns would occur online. While this may help grow the online community, this does nothing to help the local community. The FLGS will still need GMs for new or rarely run scenarios.

If my assumptions are incorrect and the GMs advocating for extra or unlimited GM credits simply want credit for reruns to maximize their ROI, I have an idea (apologies if this same suggestion has already been made; I'll gladly give credit where credit is due):
For each subsequent run of a previously run scenario, you may opt to apply a Chronicle sheet to a 1st-level character with the amount of gp gained reduced to 500 gp (or 250 gp for the slow advancement track), you lose access to all of the items listed on the Chronicle sheet, lose access to any character specific boons and forego downtime, but do not lose access to any of the Prestige Points.

I believe that's a compromise I could support. Every GM who reruns a scenario gets a Chronicle sheet, but no one can exploit the system to bypass deadly scenarios, leapfrog over difficult levels, or farm boons or equipment.

2/5

Wow. I wandered away to grill some brats and play a little Hackmaster and things got TENSE. Thanks to those calm and level-headed individuals that brought things back to a cordial level. The last thing I want is hard feelings or even worse a flame war that gets this thread locked down. That doesn't help anyone.

2/5

GM Easy-Earl you have stated my position more clearly and eloquently than I ever could. I differ a bit on the conclusions, but the base assumptions are pretty spot on.

Now, first level credit only is kinda a nonstarter. Who needs that many first level characters? But you may be on to something there. As I've stated before, I'm pretty firmly against receiving any boons or special equipment after the first run. So I'm completely with you on that point. Maybe cap the credit at third level. Gives you a place to put your credits without ending up with 29 unused first level characters, but curbs the opportunity for abuse.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I also would like to point out to those that seem to imply that I support unlimited play with full reward, I most certainly do not. Very early in this discussion I shifted my stance after reading the many legitimate concerns others would have for such a system. Limited replay. Maybe 2 or 3 additional runs for a reduced credit. No boons. No special equipment. That, to me, seems like a pretty reasonable comprise.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

The other option might be to 'unlink' the FC requirement to a given character and just make it 'GM' in general.

That would have both ups and downs, but it'd be a nice 'outside' perk almost built into the cards already so not much variation, there?


I pay $4 for an adventure, print it out, go thru the prep and basically it goes in the trash after the game, I think it is such a waste. If there is no Core in the area especially. I don't know who is proposing running the same mod 10 or 20 times. Three times would probably be ok (once a day at a typical three day convention).

Typically I run for a group of friends (for PFS credit) at a friend's house but could run again at a game store game day (my friends don't do this, so it's always a different group of players).

I won't run it a second time for no credit, and even reduced credit seems like a slap in the face. Period. I would much rather play and get full credit. Sorry if that makes me a greedy or bad GM.

I have run 11 times, not much, but will get my first star when they are all entered into the system.

Actually I think the rule is in place with the hope that it will mean more adventures will be bought. Paizo makes more money if you run three adventures once instead of one adventure three times. That's the only reason I can see about not wanting GM replays.

Scarab Sages 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think the replay/GM chronicle rules are about money for Paizo. Venture Officers can lend scenarios to people to run at their events. I buy scenarios when I run them, because I want to have the PDF, but there are GMs in my area that will borrow a printout of the scenario and return it to the VO after the fact. I've been in game stores that maintain a stock of pre-printed scenarios. Paizo gives scenarios to GMs to run at conventions.

I think the replay/GM chronicle rule is partially in place because in an ideal situation, limiting credit should actually encourage more GMs to participate. I don't have an incentive to run a scenario more than once, other than to build up table credit or if I just like it. But if I run it for 1 table, there are 3-7 people at that table who have now experienced the scenario. In an ideal situation, at least one of those players would then be willing to GM the next table and get their GM credit, so another 3-7 people get to play. If there are enough players to support yet another table, one of the other players can pick it up and run it. And, there's nothing stopping me from lending the maps I prepared for the scenario to whoever is running it that week.

The reality is that not every area has enough people to support that model. Some areas only have 1 or 2 people who GM. Some areas don't have enough players to fill multiple tables of a scenario. Some areas have a lot of turnover. There are lots of reasons why an opportunity might come up to run something a second or third time. Some people are going to be happy to do that without additional reward, some aren't.

Dark Archive 5/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Midwest

To put it in perspective, there was a decent amount of time where PFS GMs received nothing for GMing other than the goodwill for helping the local community. This was before the VO group was formed so local communities weren't receiving any scenarios for free, either. I don't recall many complaints during this time about rewards either, that all came much later :P

5/5

Drogon wrote:

Like Dave Baker most certainly has, I have asked these questions. With very few exceptions (only one I can think of, actually) I have received positive responses from those who want to GM for my events. "Positive" is something I define as wanting to to assist their fellow PFS players toward enjoying the campaign that so richly deserves their attention.

This kind of insolent response from you, I suspect, is what seeds your own interactions with players and GMs in your area. That and the absolute lack of respect you show for anyone who has a dissenting opinion toward you is why you get the responses that you most certainly expect.

Take a better approach, and see for yourself what you get.

Nothing Kifaru has said has been insolent or even a little bit rude. You on the other hand...

5/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
By the time you get to the point that you're re running scenarios often enough for it to matter you really don't need the credit for credit:

I run somewhere between 1 and 3 games per week depending on how busy I am and I use all of the credit earned. I like creating characters and credit means I get to ignore the parts of the game I find tedious (levels 1-3 ish).

Replay for credit would make me more likely to run things which have already been prepped which brings benefits to the players, better knowledge of the scenario, better preparation, a better online table, which hopefully ensures a better game for the players.

At the moment I will occasionally run a scenario multiple times if there is a lot of demand or it's a scenario I particularly liked (Ancients Anguish and All for Immortality are two recent ones) but I would be lying if I said that the lack of credit wasn't a factor in making me less likely to do so.

Sovereign Court 4/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden aka Ascalaphus

2 people marked this as a favorite.
grandpoobah wrote:

Possibly unrelated to the original post, but I had a comment regarding Faction Journal Cards (GM Credit):

The current Faction Journal Cards (Season 6+7) require you to GM "for credit" and attach the appropriate sheet to the character. This is (in practice) very difficult for me to achieve, despite GMng regularly. Mostly this is because I am GMng for no credit, or GMng something in a different tier than the relevant PC.

This seems like a problem that affects long-time GMs (As a 4-star GM, I've GM'd most of Season 1-6 for credit at this point).

Can we modify the Faction Journal Cards (in Season 8+) to give an option to write "GM Faction Credit" on a chronicle - and the chronicle can be at any Tier or with or without credit (kind of like the expanded Narrative Boon)? Also, do we even need such documentation? I've seen no (enforceable) documentation requirement on the other Faction Journal Card boxes.

Hopefully someone more experienced than I am should be able to come up with an intelligent way to write that on a Faction Journal Card in 20 words or less.

** spoiler omitted **

I rather like this idea. I'm trying to complete various faction cards with impossible player goals (faction switch), but adding too much GM credit would level the PC out of playable stuff too fast.

251 to 300 of 462 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Proposed Rule Change for Season 8: Unlimited GM Credits All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.