|
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.
Is that not a selection bias?
If we look at those who have GM'd the most, who by definition must have rerun scenarios as there are a limited number of them, does it not stand to reason that they must have been OK to do so without credit, because otherwise they wouldn't have done so?
There is a similar effect in play when people comment that GM's used to get no reward at all and nobody complained about it. This is likely to be because people who disliked it either never GM'd or stopped doing so.
I don't really have a dog in this race, but it's always useful to examine our internal biases when trying to determine a good solution.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?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?
You GM because:
- You enjoy GMing. Seriously, this should be your #1 reason! It's fun in its own right.- A second chance at credit for a scenario. This time without risks and you can make sure that if it has special boons or loot that it ends up on the right PC.
- For players you like and want to give a good time. When you have a table full of people having a good time because you made it possible, doesn't that count as a reward?
I like getting rewards for GMing too. But the second time I run a scenario I only have to do a fraction of the prep work, so why should I need the full rewards?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You GM because:
- You enjoy GMing. Seriously, this should be your #1 reason! It's fun in its own right.
- A second chance at credit for a scenario. This time without risks and you can make sure that if it has special boons or loot that it ends up on the right PC.
- For players you like and want to give a good time. When you have a table full of people having a good time because you made it possible, doesn't that count as a reward?I like getting rewards for GMing too. But the second time I run a scenario I only have to do a fraction of the prep work, so why should I need the full rewards?
One may *also* GM because:
- They want to return back to the community a little bit that was 'paid forward' to them.
- They don't have any other good choices if they want to play Pathfinder Society in any form.
- They get roped into doing it because people 'called off' at a convention/game day they weren't even needed to judge at initially and there's a coverage issue.
- No one else in the area has played any of the scenarios the prospective GM has, so the GM needs to 'step up' to 'bring the fire' for other players.
- They'd rather be judging for PFS than a different campaign that is less worthy of their time and effort.
- They're using PFS GMing as the 'shield' against being coerced socially into judging in a different campaign.
Those are some of the other reasons I can think of right off the top of my head...
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that I find extremely worrying in this thread is the attitude that level 1 is something that should be skipped where possible, either by playing evergreens or applying GM credits.
You should really blame the game system.
The jump in power from 0 xp 150 gp in equipment and 3 xp ~1200 gp in equipment at level 2 is huge. You will have +50% or more hit points, likely +2 or more AC, +2 or more to hit bonus and a lot of other things that significantly increase your capabilities.
I've been playing D&D and it's derivatives for decades. In my opinion, first level has already been a pain. I'll play through it if I need to get a better feel for the character I'm building, but I have a lot more fun at slightly higher levels.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I used to do that. Then I realized that I was redoing scenario prep far more often, wasting a lot of my time redrawing maps and the like. Now I have four hanging file bins with a folder for every scenario. Not only do I keep my prepwork for future games, I can hand it out to other players when they want to run a scenario. (Naturally, I have far more cause to do this as a VO than you do as a GM.)
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
With my undine, Nixie, I totally wanted to play the low levels on her. With my sorceress, Zahra, I used level 1 to figure out how to both run her tiger and what spells might work. Level one also helped me figure out how my first martial, Lyric the Singing Paladin, worked, and then my first swashbuckler, Doom Girl.
There are times I totally want to play Level 1, and times I want to start at Level 3 when the character finally comes together. GM Credit allows one to do that, and it's not a terrible thing. If I'm going to have GM Credit to spend, it makes sense that it either covers Level One, or is used to help get characters through Level 6 where there might not be enough scenarios to cover.
Hmm
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that I find extremely worrying in this thread is the attitude that level 1 is something that should be skipped where possible, either by playing evergreens or applying GM credits.
I personally think that this is a very dangerous attitude - especially towards new players who do not have the ability to apply GM credits or similar. Without the more experienced players (and the people who are GMing on the other side of the screen) experiencing play at level 1 - especially with the recent scenarios can give GMs inaccurate readings of the table's capabilities at best, and can dissuade new players from sticking around at worst.
Unlimited GM credits will make this worse.
While a lot of my characters only play 0-1 times at first level, I always keep a small number of "play-only" characters. These are characters I refuse to put GM credits on and will only advance by playing.
|
One thing that I find extremely worrying in this thread is the attitude that level 1 is something that should be skipped where possible, either by playing evergreens or applying GM credits.
I personally think that this is a very dangerous attitude - especially towards new players who do not have the ability to apply GM credits or similar. Without the more experienced players (and the people who are GMing on the other side of the screen) experiencing play at level 1 - especially with the recent scenarios can give GMs inaccurate readings of the table's capabilities at best, and can dissuade new players from sticking around at worst.
Unlimited GM credits will make this worse.
The game system severely punishes some characters at very low levels. A simple example would be a dex based unchained rogue. At level 3, he can reasonably dump Str down a fair bit since he'll be using dex to damage. But at level 1 and 2 if he has done this then he is very, very underpowered.
As to 1-5 scenarios at the events I organize I definitely try hard to match the capability/experience of a GM with the difficulty of a scenario. Inexperienced GMs get the fairly simple to run/read scenarios.
But I'm definitely in the group of GMs that just don't like playing level 1 very much with many characters. Oh, I have a level 1 character made in case I need to play at an Evergreen table (I refuse to run a Pregen unless there is absolutely no alternative). But so many characters just SUCK at level 1 that I don't want to play them there. I figure that level 1 is a combination of bad game design and making new players pay their dues. I've paid my dues :-)
| 4 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
I don't see any sign of someone being shut out of the conversation for not having stars.
Yes, we do need more GMs. What we don't need are people who will ONLY GM if rewarded on a ridiculous level.
|
|
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.
3. I've run one PFS scenario, there are a few others that Ihave on my 'run this next' list, when I get a chance. Why do the same thing again?
(But I have come from a shared RPG campaign where you had to write every adventure you ran from scratch, so I may be a statistical outlier.)
|
|
I'd like to find two or three good story arcs from the first few seasons. Find some stuff that doesn't get run much anymore and get real good at running them. Then make a habit of running groups through a nice cohesive story every few weeks. I'd have a little stable of 20 or so scenarios. When I finish a run through, I'll go back and do it again. I want to get very good at tying the stories together to give players the best possible experience. I'm going to do this whether I get GM credit or not. It seams like a nice idea and is something people would enjoy. I just find it odd that this approach to GMing would be considered less worthwhile.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't considered less worthwhile by me, Kifaru. This is a great way to build community and develop players who care about storyline. Your players will love you, and you will build a strong community. Good on you!
I still don't think you should get multiple GM credit for doing this, though. Not because you don't deserve it: you absolutely do. But it's better to give you non-Chronicle rewards for the effort, because others (who maybe don't deserve it) *will* abuse it in their misguided attempt to "win" Pathfinder.
A handful of players who have this attitude can set a Lodge back months or years of growth if the rest of the players don't share their sense of fun. Yes, that means that GMing is still somewhat of a sacrifice credit-wise, but that means that GMs who do it because they like it run more games. Folks who are only credit-driven won't GM as often, and that's fine, too.
Sometimes decisions for the campaign aren't great for your table or your region. Just remember that the reverse is also true.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game system severely punishes some characters at very low levels. A simple example would be a dex based unchained rogue. At level 3, he can reasonably dump Str down a fair bit since he'll be using dex to damage. But at level 1 and 2 if he has done this then he is very, very underpowered.
Eh. Not really. Yeah, I had my level 2 rogue be accused of being underpowered because I rolled a 2 on the die and only did 2hp of damage. (The accusation would not have come if I'd rolled a 7 on the die.) But it is 1st and 2nd level. You don't need to be better than that.
My experience is that most PFS characters are overpowered. Yeah, everybody optimizes to some degree (it's part of just being competent), but a lot of PFS players optimize or min/max way more than they need to. The result is that at most tables, the group just completely bowls over the scenario. The rare table where the party mix isn't just right (or where the one overpowered martial character gets dominated) then seems like a surprise where something went horribly wrong. (And, yeah, I'm thinking of a specific table here. It's worth nothing that there was a lot of social interaction earlier in the scenario, and we completely killed that part of the scenario because our diplomancer had something like +35 to Diplomacy. Which was, to put it mildly, overkill.... OPed in another way, just not in combat.)
But you don't need 16hp and to be doing an average of 8hp of damage per attack at 1st level. Yes, you can achieve that if you're a barbarian and you focus on that. It's just not necessary.
The low-level rogues with 10 STR are OK. They may feel underpowered in combat, but that's only in comparison to an overpowered standard developed by the player base. And, really, there is more to most scenarios than combat.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The low-level rogues with 10 STR are OK. They may feel underpowered in combat, but that's only in comparison to an overpowered standard developed by the player base. And, really, there is more to most scenarios than combat.
Try playing a fighter with a 10 strength. Yeah, you get looks.
|
|
The low-level rogues with 10 STR are OK. They may feel underpowered in combat, but that's only in comparison to an overpowered standard developed by the player base. And, really, there is more to most scenarios than combat.Try playing a fighter with a 10 strength. Yeah, you get looks.
Yes, Taco get looks. Taco get looks of, "Taco, why you so awesome?"
Taco just that awesome.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The community building is a thing I am creating myself. It is no reward given to me by you or the PFS leadership. It is in the form of official PFS recognition, that what I will be doing is deemed less worthy of recognition.
If it is recognition you are seeking, you've already got that. With the exception of the 5th star, rerunning a scenario counts fully towards earning GM stars. That is most certainly a form of recognition. Even for the 5th star, you are allowed to rerun quite a few adventures.
Personally, I find a "Thank you" from the player after the session is better recognition.
Rerunning a scenario takes less effort than running it the first time. Rather than using aggressive terms (such as less worthy of recognition) perhaps you should try to determine if the rewards are proportional to what the campaign gains.
|
Venture-Agent, Ohio—Columbus
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Virtue is its own reward. There's a pleasure in doing good which sufficiently pays itself.
Where very true, and indeed should be taken to heart.
The flip side of this is I had a long conversation today about another long term chronicle like this one, and parts of the discussion were around why I didn't come back to it. Does strike a point to this conversation as well.
My experience not in PFS but other chronicles were at one point I was the GM for two slots every Saturday, every weekend, and if there was a 5th weekend putting together something for that. One of the few things I never heard 'thank you' -- I even offered for the two+ years I did this on a regular basis to mentor people into stepping up into the GM spot (even just one or two), but they would rather play. Part of the reason I'm still climbing in stars... burn out does exist.
Now why I stay and try and be more active in PFS is because one of the things I commonly hear is 'thank you', 'we had fun', 'glad to be here' -- these mean a ton! They are also not always a guarantee. You do have the areas and I've visited some where this is more the exception than the rule. Having something to thank people for their time, those times you sit with the rules lawyers who question everything, that just like pushing buttons. They may not hear thank you but things like replay, the scrolls boons, softens that blow until the next time when you get a table that does say 'thank you we had fun'.
Should these be a given and handed out more freely -- honestly I don't think so, but I also don't think we should do away with things like this. Some one mentioned opening up the Faction Card aspect of things - more creative things like this go much further along then just 'replay' -- are there some things that I like that I wouldn't mind running again, sure. Have I burned stars on things that helped fire a table vs. being the best scenario out there - yes. If your someone like me that only has a few stars, the race options for future characters are much better options than recharging - for someone with higher stars that may be the opposite.
We are not going to have a perfect solution that fits everyone. I do think we need to look into possibly what is the middle ground. Could it be opened up a bit more - possibly but then how to do this without opening the floodgates so to say. Not to mention the paperwork headache, the current system already doesn't track replays or multiple instances of the tables correctly.
I would rather see things help the community grow but still thank the GMs for their time. We have boons like the ones for reading the novels (which I've seen help people a great deal on knowing your setting). Perhaps something like that for the story arcs that exist. I know I've tried to piece some of them together myself to run for new players. -- We have bonus chronicles for the multi-part modules something like this for players/gms so you have a full story in places and people like hearing stories that's why we roleplay.
|
|
Seeing as there are still way more players than GMs, there would still be a demand for tier 1-5 games.
Please remember I'm using hyperbole here:
But who's going to run those new scenarios? We're all busy rerunning the same 20 or so scenarios; we're not going to prep and run something we haven't previously run.
And for each level six character that is built games would be provided for about 90 players.
That's only true if you get 6 unique players at each of those 15 tables.
|
|
Seeing as you're speaking in hyperbole and describing scenarios that are not representative of reality, it's not particularly useful to find a specific answer to the situation described.
It is reductio ad ridiculum. A straw man argument.
What is more likely, is some like me will find a handful of scenarios and play them often. Some will have many scenarios, but have a few that they go back to from time to time. Others, who love the challenge of always something new will constantly run new scenarios. And there will be GMs of every type in between.
And, even if suddenly every GM in PFS became a clone of me and only ran the same 20 scenarios over and over again, it's highly doubtful we would all be running the same 20 scenarios. ;)
|
|
Seeing as you're speaking in hyperbole and describing scenarios that are not representative of reality, it's not particularly useful to find a specific answer to the situation described.
You're right; let me address this from a slightly different angle.
If you were to run a group of 6 players through a set of 15 scenarios which you've already run and for which you're receiving replay credit, you and your 6 players would have 6th level characters when you're finished. Those 6 players aren't going to play anymore Tier 1-5 scenarios with those characters. Then you do it again. Now 12 players have played the same set of scenarios. Every time you do this, you're removing 6 more players from the pool of possible participants in new Tier 1-5 scenarios. The more times you do it, the smaller that pool becomes. And as more GMs follow your lead, that pool gets ever smaller.I see that as potentially detrimental to the growth of PFS.
Now you could argue that there's nothing to prevent that from happening now. GMs are free to rerun scenarios as often as the like. But as you've stated, you believe there are a significant number of GMs who won't rerun without credit.
I see that as the check and balance on the current system. Removing that could break it.
|
|
Can we close this thread?
With just 3 weeks till GenCon chances that continuing this discussion will lead to a Season 8 Rule Change are quite slim.
My apologies, Auke. I was composing my last post when you made yours. I'll gladly let Kifaru have the last word if he wishes to respond to my latest post and give the whole thing a rest until after the new guide is released and convention season is well past us.
|
|
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. If I run a group through a series of games and get them all to sixth level, I have shared the joy of PFS with a group of players for at least 15 tables worth of games. Those players are still allowed to play a different character in a 1-5 game. In no way is the pool diminished.
We may have to start running a few more high tier games. The local VC told me they don't run a lot of high tier games at conventions because there aren't enough people in tier to fill tables. Well, now their might be.
|
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
A long term view? Oh, I approve.
It's still an interesting discussion, but maybe we can pick this one up again after GenCon. One last monkey wrench: I've been thinking about scenario saturation, which happens a lot even with limited GM replay credit.
I'm starting to think that part of it may be because our casual GMs (whom I love having in the GM pool because they give us all breaks) tend to only want to run scenarios that they have previously played. This means that scenarios like Mists of Mwangi show up over and over again. It creates an endless cycle of the same scenarios showing up, store after store.
Someone needs to eat the new scenarios to bring them to the rest of the Lodge. Fortunately, the PFS Scenario Session tracker has been instrumental to us in introducing "flex" tables which select scenarios based primarily on what the group has NOT played yet. This means that older and more obscure scenarios are finally seeing more play in our area. It's also brought back a bunch of players that were having trouble finding scenarios to play.
I think it also helps that the larger store locations assign the scenario schedule so that people who want to GM are encouraged to learn new material. Unfortunately, that may be part of why the larger stores only see the same GM crowd over and over... Learning a scenario that one has not played yet is intimidating as heck.
Hmm