Are we going to have to start over earning DM stars in the 2.0 campaign?

[Woran]

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Gerard van Konijnenburg wrote:

I do not mind that we have to start anew on these PFS2 moons, just as we had to start anew on SFS novas. It is a new campaign, so we have to earn those moons from ground up.

What I don’t like is that holders of the campaign service coin and order of the wayfinder will receive a benefit in PFS2 (and SFS), while they also received their coin/order for something they did for PFS1, just as we received our GM stars for running games for PFS1. I can’t help but feel that some animals are better than other animals.

The coins and wayfinders are by definition better than other contributions, thats the point.

They are also not tied to Stars in any way.

[Gary Bush]

Gerard van Konijnenburg wrote:

What I don’t like is that holders of the campaign service coin and order of the wayfinder will receive a benefit in PFS2 (and SFS), while they also received their coin/order for something they did for PFS1, just as we received our GM stars for running games for PFS1. I can’t help but feel that some animals are better than other animals.

Why does this bother you? The people hold those items have given a lot to the overall campaign. Most are multi-star GMs in their own right. Do you know what they did to EARN the recognition that those items honor? Maybe they are better animals because they put forth the effort to be better animals.

Coins and Order of the Wayfinder holders should get something special. Because without them, it is very likely that PFS1.0 would not be were it is today and Paizo would not be looking at PF2.0. They helped to expand the game we all enjoy.

[Magabeus]

I know that a lot of recipients of the coin are multi-star GMs and that some are not, that does not matter because it is a different kind of recognition. Still, in my opinion both are recognitions for putting PFS1 forward. And it bothers me that only some recognitions carry over to PFS2.

Maybe I need to look at it differently: we have the organised campaign which consists of subcampaigns ACG, PFS1, PFS2 and SFS. In that case the star / nova / moon / .... system is a recognition for putting the specific subcampaign forward and the coin and order are recognitions for putting the organised campaign forward.

This might be the way Paizo is thinking. It just was not the way I was thinking, so I might need to adjust that.

[Tallow]

The stars are recognition for GMing only. And it is not really even a recognition of quality of GMing. Only pretty much quantity. Now granted, in most cases, someone wouldn't last to 5 stars if they were a really awful GM.

The coin is recognition of roughly 3,000+ hours of time spent organizing things or otherwise assisting with PFS in some significant way. I believe Mike set the time at 3 years of service to earn a coin. There are a few people that earned a coin in a different way.

The key is, they earned the coin. Valid arguments could be made that GMing is "earning" recognition as well. You'd be correct. But until you've worn the organizer hat, its going to be an incredibly hard sell to anyone who has worn one, to say their recognition will no longer be recognized.

[Marc Waschle]

I think the special requirement should stay as it is. I am only half way to my second Star, and close to my first Nova, but I have run 4 PFS specials already and the SFS special 5 times. (After GenCon 50 is finished!) I ran my first specials at my first GenCon last year, and honestly it was a blast!

However, like Hmm stated, I don't think I would have done it if it wasn't given to my by the Leads. It made me step up my game, get my butt in gear, and over all made me a better GM. I have volunteered to run the specials this year, as well as any for Star Finder and PF2 playtest material! I fully intend to have all 10 of my Specials knocked out way before my third Star.

Finally, I'm not upset in the least about my Stars not carrying over to PF2. I know, easy for me to say I only have X number not 5, but I wasn't upset when they went to Nova's for SFS because, Different System!!! I will readily admit that I'm not near as knowledgeable or have the level of system mastery in SF that I do in PF. Nor will I have in PF2. I'm good with starting at the ground floor just like SF, heck I even get to run new Specials!

[Shifty]

Meh I got to be honest, I get the real 'yesterday's news' feeling about it.

I was fine with Starfinder as it really is its own game and campaign, but in PFS it feels more like a cut across rather than something 'new'. We are moving to a simpler and less complicated game in its infancy and with all the content problems we just hit with Starfinder.

It will be on the established community GMs to lift and carry the new campaign forward, but at the same time they're being expected to leave the recognition for their efforts to date in the past.

Anyhow, the Specials can be hard to get for a lot of GM's - they aren't intimidating, they were just a chore to get the count up on.

I take the point tallow makes about the coin, but yeah 5 Stars is still 750 hours of 'on the tools' GMing, plus the prep work etc that goes into it, and I haven't met many 5 stars who weren't ALSO organising Cons and/or members of they VO team.

[BretI]

Gary Bush wrote:

Do you know what they did to EARN the recognition that those items honor? Maybe they are better animals because they put forth the effort to be better animals.

Coins and Order of the Wayfinder holders should get something special. Because without them, it is very likely that PFS1.0 would not be were it is today and Paizo would not be looking at PF2.0. They helped to expand the game we all enjoy.

Actually, I would like it if there were a listing of everyone with the coin or wayfinder listing what they did to earn them.

[Pirate Rob]

I was not given an explicit reason as to my service coin award and did not serve 3+ years as a VC.

I don't believe it was for one specific thing but for the thousands of hours spent helping this campaign be as awesome as possible in a variety of ways.

Some Awesome Stuffs:

Being Bay Area VC for 2 years.
Stepping up and running ACG at GenCon at the last minute.
Being a thoughtful/sane/helpful poster on these forums
Running www.pfsprep.com
Running the first ACG pbp.
That one time I grabbed Bahb's Paladin, shunted him into an extra dimensional space and nearly choked the life out of him.
General Pirate Awesomeness

[Marc Waschle]

Both my area and regional VCs are 5 star GMs. They are the only two coin/wayfinder recipients I have ever met, but they both continue to GM all the time, run Cons, as well as attend 12-15 Cons a season.
I guess we are just lucky here that we have such motivated and dedicated community leaders/members.

[tivadar27]

So I understand there can't/shouldn't be a 1-to-1 mapping between stars in the two systems, but I feel like this is a vastly different case than was Starfinder. Starfinder was a different system AND effectively a different world. Pathfinder 2e is a different system, but in the same world. GM stars reflect knowing the system, yes, but the also reflect the storytelling of knowing the world, and I think having stars carry over in some capacity to 2e is important.

[Greymist]

Bret Indrelee wrote:

,,,The first few stars are about quantity and showing you have can do the basics. After that, it should start being about giving to the community, developing the skills to be able to guide others in a fun way, and sharing in the community that we have here. ...

My Rant: Actually, for those of us who don't have an opportunity to play that often, every game that we GM is about giving to the community. Between work and family, I've had the opportunity to participate in less than 150 PFS games, but I've given up a quarter of my limited opportunities in order to GM and provide games to others. I recognize that our 4 and 5 star GMs have given a lot more time and effort to building PFS, but it would be appreciated if the conversion to 2.0 recognized and rewarded the effort and sacrifice put in by everyone who has contributed to the growth of PFS.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Pirate Rob wrote:

I was not given an explicit reason as to my service coin award and did not serve 3+ years as a VC.

I don't believe it was for one specific thing but for the thousands of hours spent helping this campaign be as awesome as possible in a variety of ways.

** spoiler omitted **

I think you deserve a knighthood for at least one of those.

[Darius Alazario]

Andrew the Warwitch wrote:

TOZ wrote:

I didn't GM for the rewards.

I'm looking more at if the credit for the games, the characters we are applying that credit to, etc won't exist when 2.0 goes online...then what's the point? Same as PC's. What the point to play anything anymore if in a year we lose our favorite characters and everything we have accomplished on them?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say.. because it is fun. So this is a bit tongue in cheek here and all but really, I'd personally not want to sit and do no PFS or similar gaming for the next year and a half because PFS2 is coming.

1) You can continue playing PFS1 content even after PFS2 starts, there just wont be any NEW content released. So you can still play those characters and complete their stories.

2) That is an awfully long time to just sit and wait and put my hobby on hold. I play the PFS content because I enjoy the hobby and want to play. I'd be awful bored without it in the interim. Yeah, it might suck if I just leave a character off to go start something new in a year and half... but in the meantime, I am sure as heck going to enjoy the play I do get and, to me, that is not time wasted so long as I enjoyed each table I sat down and played at.

[Hmm]

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Pirate Rob wrote:

I was not given an explicit reason as to my service coin award and did not serve 3+ years as a VC.

I don't believe it was for one specific thing but for the thousands of hours spent helping this campaign be as awesome as possible in a variety of ways.

I think you deserve a knighthood for at least one of those.

Sir Pirate Rob has a nice ring to it.

Hmm

[cartmanbeck]

Gerard van Konijnenburg wrote:

I know that a lot of recipients of the coin are multi-star GMs and that some are not, that does not matter because it is a different kind of recognition. Still, in my opinion both are recognitions for putting PFS1 forward. And it bothers me that only some recognitions carry over to PFS2.

Maybe I need to look at it differently: we have the organised campaign which consists of subcampaigns ACG, PFS1, PFS2 and SFS. In that case the star / nova / moon / .... system is a recognition for putting the specific subcampaign forward and the coin and order are recognitions for putting the organised campaign forward.

This might be the way Paizo is thinking. It just was not the way I was thinking, so I might need to adjust that.

Let me point out that David Jacobson got his campaign coin at last PaizoCon, and he has only recently GM'd his FIRST RPG scenario ever... he got his campaign coin for his contributions to the campaign through Adventure Card Game, where organizers/box runners get absolutely zero extra recognition and are treated as players at best (though most convention organizers will give GM boons to our ACG organizers, which is nice). But my point being, we don't have a star system in the ACG, but there are some who have contributed in VERY meaningful ways.

[Pirate Rob]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Pirate Rob wrote:

I was not given an explicit reason as to my service coin award and did not serve 3+ years as a VC.

I don't believe it was for one specific thing but for the thousands of hours spent helping this campaign be as awesome as possible in a variety of ways.

I think you deserve a knighthood for at least one of those.

Sir Pirate Rob has a nice ring to it.

Hmm

I only look tall because I'm standing on Thea's head.

[TwilightKnight]

Tallow wrote:

I believe Mike set the time at 3 years of service to earn a coin

Spoiler:

Actually that was never an official requirement. Three years was never meant to be a qualifier of any kind. Its just that most of the early recipients, when their efforts were described, had all given three or more years of service to the campaign. The community then, looking to answer the question "how do I get one," extrapolated the efforts given to be requirements for consideration. Soon after, when Mike left OP and Tonya took over, the original vision he had went with him. Tonya had to determine how best to implement the program, her own way, with little to no guidance from the person who created it. Now, certainly length of service to the community is a factor when reviewing the qualifications of a candidate but it is neither an automatic "win", nor is it a non-starter. The campaign coin is simply a recognition of commitment to the campaign as determined by the OPM.

I can speak to this with some authority having been a member of the team/committee who reviewed the program on her request when Tonya became OPM. We looked at a lot of different parameters and in the end, we advised that it continue to be an award with no specific qualifiers. It is an award solely decided by the OPM and issued to who she chooses. This allows her to recognize long-serving volunteers as well as someone new who might do something amazing in a one-time event or over a short period of time, but who is just as deserving of recognition.

[Hmm]

It was interesting hearing this, Bob. Thank you for sharing this background and insight with us.

Hmm

[Magabeus]

Tyler, thanks. That confirms that I need to look at it differently.

[Luke_Parry]

My question is, will games GM'ed for the playtest, count towards Pathfinder 2.0 GM stars...?

[Tallow]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Tallow wrote:

I believe Mike set the time at 3 years of service to earn a coin

** spoiler omitted **

Before Paizo Con, 2015, Mike sent out an email asking who had 3+ years of service. Then at least some of us got a coin while attending Paizo Con.

That is also why the extrapolation happened.

[Bristor]

I don't care about my stars, or any special boons (I mean there have definitely been rewards in the PF1 campaign, so I don't know that special boons are needed) but I really don't understand why the stars need to be wiped out. If so much is staying the same narratively (we're all still Pathfinders based out of lodges right?) then I don't see why those who have stars can't keep them, while allowing new folks to earn them in PF2.

It seems odd that the one of the few unilateral, not up for discussion aspects of the new blog was that stars WILL be wiped out (well, ok, they still exist, but don't mean anything).

Again, take my stars, 2 ain't that impressive, but for my friends who keep our local lodge alive with their GMing, it feels like an insult, especially those who are deep into their 4th.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

Tallow wrote:

I believe Mike set the time at 3 years of service to earn a coin

** spoiler omitted **

I agree time served really is not a good indication of your service to the campaign.

[TwilightKnight]

Bristor wrote:

don't mean anything

My stars certainly mean something to me regardless if anyone else cares.

[Gary Bush]

Ok, lets see if I can come at this from a different direction.

I think is safe to say that most players agree that stars are important. My two little stars and one little nova are sources of pride for me. As they should be.

But the challenge is that stars have a mechanical effect in PFS. They give a bonus when making that one re-roll a game we can get. They allow a person to run special content. Are there more that I am missing?

So because they give a mechanical effect in PFS1.0, it is reasonable to think they would give mechanical effect in PFS2.0. And this is where the problem begins.

The point of developing PF2.0 is to get more players. A new game is naturally going to draw new players in. So for these new players, who are playing a new game, it will look really weird if they sit down at table and 3 of 5 players get bonuses they don’t get because of what happened in previous version of the game. Did you encounter this at when you first started to play PFS?

Yes, acknowledgment needs to be given to GMs as we transition to 2.0. We need to balance that so new players are don't feel left out. What form this takes is what we are trying to help leadership figure out. But it is safe to believe that stars will not carry forward on a 1 to 1 basis.

This is true about boons moving forward as well.

[pauljathome]

Gary Bush wrote:

But it is safe to believe that stars will not carry forward on a 1 to 1 basis.

At this point in time I'm pretty certain that just about NOTHING about PFS2 is completely set in stone. Some things are going to be harder to change than others but just about anything would be changed with a sufficient combination of reasoned arguments and sheer anger. Paizo WANTS to make PF2 and PFS2 successes and they know that this means listening to us, especially on those incredibly rare cases where we reach something approximating consensus :-).

Note that I'm talking in the abstract here, NOT about any particular change in particular. If we take the specific case of stars there is absolutely no consensus building at this point, no massive surge of anger, no brilliant new points being made, etc. If things continue like that then Paizo probably won't change its mind and stars will NOT carry over, at least not fully.

But (speaking purely hypothetically and NOT trying to forment rebellion) if the reaction to this had been a near universal outcry from GMs that it was totally and utterly acceptable and would cause them to NOT run PFS2 then I'm pretty sure Paizo would change their mind.

So I urge people to voice their concerns and not self censor because they think the decision has already been made.

[Arnim Thayer]

Douglas Edwards wrote:

Would really love to double down on that last bit - giving a small reward like that definitely won't feel like very much.

I really like the idea of being members of an exclusive faction - Seekers or Shadow Lodge with its own unique benefits. They shouldnt even necessarily be better than the other factions but it being kept exclusive will definitely make it feel like an earned reward.

This is one of the better ideas I’ve seen. It involves creating a Faction that has inclusive membership, perhaps receiving direct orders from the Decemvirate. It not only rewards those who already had earned their 5-stars, but also gives an incentive for GMs to continue to strive for 5-Star status running the 1E campaign even after the release of the 2E campaign. This has merit... suggestions on how this would play out?

[Cirithiel]

Michael VonHasseln wrote:

Douglas Edwards wrote:

Would really love to double down on that last bit - giving a small reward like that definitely won't feel like very much.

I really like the idea of being members of an exclusive faction - Seekers or Shadow Lodge with its own unique benefits. They shouldnt even necessarily be better than the other factions but it being kept exclusive will definitely make it feel like an earned reward.

This is one of the better ideas I’ve seen. It involves creating a Faction that has inclusive membership, perhaps receiving direct orders from the Decemvirate. It not only rewards those who already had earned their 5-stars, but also gives an incentive for GMs to continue to strive for 5-Star status running the 1E campaign even after the release of the 2E campaign. This has merit... suggestions on how this would play out?

To keep it fair, you need to provide some way for 2ndEd only players to get access. Maybe... “One character can join the faction for each star you earn in either PFS campaign”?

Actually, this feels like a better GM reward to me than the current GM chronicle. To be clear, I don’t mean “more powerful,” I mean that it is more likely to be used. The GM chronicle has some very nice bonuses on it, but in practice doesn’t get used until you are 4 or 5 stars. Linking stars to faction access would be a smaller benefit, but that would *feel* more useful since there would be no need to wait to use the benefit.

This wouldn’t be game-breaking if the faction rewards are kept in line with the other factions.

[Sebastian Hirsch]

Be aware that there will be a rather vicious backlash from people who can't GM for one reason or the other.

The other problem would be that ideally, your faction has an impact on the story, so I would rather want to see fewer factions that get more spotlight, than more faction.

[Shifty]

Right now we're starting to see backlash from the people who DO GM.

Taking something away from people usually creates more animosity than people who didn't get given something they hadn't earned.

Everyone has an opportunity to GM.

[GM Wageslave]

Just because there are opportunities to GM does not mean that all candidates are necessarily qualified to GM nor are all of the prospects comfortable with a grinding march to 5-Stardom.

Some have even done that 'death march' to the point of nearly giving up gaming in other campaigns. We should instead recognize that some folks aren't going to be doing their first star in two or three years, but it might take five or six.

In addition, some areas have limited venues for GMs to step up, with limited player pool that's been hemorraghed to other Organized Play campaigns.

It's not a lack of desire, it's a desire to do it right and well, at least from this corner.

[outshyn]

If it were me making decisions, I'd probably just have a new system for PFS 2, but keep it similar. I'd let the old system sit alongside the new system. For example, I'd keep the stars in place, but as a symbol only for PFS 1. For PFS 2, maybe award medals instead. So a person who had GM'd a ton of games for PFS 2 might look like this when he/she posted:

🏅🏅🏅 Username

There are a bunch of medal emojis (and star emojis -- don't really need to waste an actual graphic icon on this stuff), so it should be easy to pick something that blends in OK. Someone who had stars & medals would have both visible:

⭐⭐⭐ 🏅🏅 Username

I'd allow people to use either system for re-rolls, but not both. So if you have 4 stars in PFS 1, and you are playing in a PFS 2 game, you can still get a re-roll at +4. In this way, you could end up with someone who is both 5-star and 5-medal, and both contributions would be respected and shown.

[TwilightKnight]

Having the same reward in both systems would mean that someone who already had 5stars would have no incentive to GM in the other. Personally I think stars should reset and we start over in PFS2, but I recognize how some dislike that idea. So, how about we leave PFS1 stars in place and let them continue to function as is in both campaigns. We do the same for PFS2 as well. They would count separately and still incentive GMs to run games. To further incentify both campaigns as well as those already with 5 stars, one campaign, the one you have more “gidgets” in grants a reroll with a bonus to the roll and the second campaign allows you to force the GM to reroll taking the “gigdet” count as a penalty.

[Magabeus]

I don’t think players need more rerolls. I also do not GM for the rewards (as in plusses to my reroll) I GM because I like it.

[TwilightKnight]

I agree and would love nothing more than for GMs to simply run games for the altruism. However, as people keep telling me that is not reality. So we have to work with what people want. That means rewards. What I suggested doesn’t give players more rerolls, it just allows them to keep the one we already have as well as add one in to use against the GM. That would help keep the interest GMing both campaigns. In the end, that’s what we really want to accomplish.

[GM Wageslave]

I'd be on-board for a 'request GM to reroll at penalty' re-roll for PF2, especially with the way criticals appear to be heading.

Elegant inversion of the current means, and it'd keep it simple for folks to understand.

Small Potential Drawback: Folks may forget what campaign they're playing (it can happen! It's happened in Starfinder)

Also, needs a better name.... :P

Got it! Individual 'star' equivalents could be considered 'Books'!

[whew]

For new star names, we could use the skill rank names:
Trained/Expert/Master/???/Legendary

[nosig]

Ok, going forward, will we have the option to start with NO stars?

I guess I am reading the thread title as: "Are we going to be permitted to start over earning DM stars in the 2.0 campaign?"

I would like to get my fifth star in the last game of the "active" 1stEdition campaign. So, I guess that would be the last game Wednesday night before the Thursday start of Gencon ... ah... next year? that would be Aug. 2019 right? So I'll be the very "Last PFS 5th Star judge" of the "supported, active campaign".

Then, for 2nd Ed. I personally would like to start with a fresh slate. No more privileges than any other person starting from zero... from any other beginner. I'm going to have enough problem with teaching myself that "that's the old rules, it doesn't work like that any more". I don't want to find out that someone quoted me as an "authority" because "that's the way nosig said to do it, and he's a 5 Star Judge you know"... yeah. Like I'm an authority in the new addition...

But that's just for me.

I guess I can just get a new Player number and register a "new me" - heck, I would need to get a new alias too right?... maybe I'll go with "New-Dude"? or "Notnosig"?

[N N 959]

Tonya Woldridge wrote:

Stars won't carry over direct, there will be some other symbology, but the team is looking at ways a GM's stars may impact pieces of version 2. If you have an idea, we'd love to hear it.

Not sure I understand why you wouldn't transfer stars over 1 to 1? I can understand PFS not transferring over to SFS, as SFS is completely different system and was not intended to phase out PFS 1e. But if I'm understanding the strategy, 2e is supposed supplant 1e, as in no more content for 1e will be produced after a year or so.

I'm sure others have posted this, but my interpretation of the the star system in PFS was that it represented work and effort put into PFS, and certainly not about system mastery. If all we are doing is going from 1e to 2e, why would Paizo/PFS want undervalue that work? If not for the success of 1e, we wouldn't even have a 2e.

I can certainly understand wanting to encourage/incentive GMs to work just as hard in 2e as the did in 1e. Okay, so make it 10 stars. All the old stars transfer over as does all the sweat equity.

I only have one star, so this isn't that big of a deal, but if I had 3 or 4, I'd be pretty annoyed at the idea of starting over. Might even make me want to just move on.

[sanwah68]

nosig wrote:

Ok, going forward, will we have the option to start with NO stars?

I guess I am reading the thread title as: "Are we going to be permitted to start over earning DM stars in the 2.0 campaign?"

I would like to get my fifth star in the last game of the "active" 1stEdition campaign. So, I guess that would be the last game Wednesday night before the Thursday start of Gencon ... ah... next year? that would be Aug. 2019 right? So I'll be the very "Last PFS 5th Star judge" of the "supported, active campaign".

Then, for 2nd Ed. I personally would like to start with a fresh slate. No more privileges than any other person starting from zero... from any other beginner. I'm going to have enough problem with teaching myself that "that's the old rules, it doesn't work like that any more". I don't want to find out that someone quoted me as an "authority" because "that's the way nosig said to do it, and he's a 5 Star Judge you know"... yeah. Like I'm an authority in the new addition...

But that's just for me.

I guess I can just get a new Player number and register a "new me" - heck, I would need to get a new alias too right?... maybe I'll go with "New-Dude"? or "Notnosig"?

I was planning the same thing, my last game for my 5th star to be in August 2019. And to be honest, I would be more than ready to put that 5 star race to bed, and start on a new one. So I am in the same camp as Nosig.

[GM Wageslave]

Was thinking about this a bit at work today and came up with some ideas:

1. What if PF1 GM stars were used as a 'discount' on the number of Specials that a PF2 GM needs to qualify for their 5th 'star'? It's small, but it'd change from needing to run 20 specials to 15 for those who have already done a lot of work in the first system... and provides an incentive for PF1 GMs to keep working at it?

2. Having already been vetted by an appropriate body for PF1, a strong recommendation that PF2 GMs that attain the high level shouldn't require a second 'evaluation' table -- they already met that bar in PF1

3. The most controversial idea follows: Allow the addition of the two campaign markers to determine what scenario availability is for a given GM -- A GM that's done two stars in PF1 and two 'stars' in PF2 would be counted as a 'four star' GM (the numbers aren't the same, sure, but it bridges two different systems and that's a significant investment of time and effort) for purposes of 'star-restricted' scenarios.

Benefit: It again motivates for activity in both campaigns, recognizes the work that's already been put forward in a previous campaign, and most importantly, allows rarer and restricted scenarios to see more activity.

Thank you for your time and patience in advance.

[Neriathale]

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Personally, I am not too thrilled that in theory you could just run APs in home games and get a lot of stars, it feels a bit unfair to those who offered public tables. So if we are changing the star calculations, I would like to see a minimum number of required public tables.

Maybe make earning stars in some way contingent on the number of different players you have GM'd for as well as tables - 10 players minimum for 1 star, 20 for 2, 30 for 3... or something like that. It should be possible to calculate from the reported tables on the website.

[Magabeus]

That would be rather harsh for GMs who run at public locations with a small crowd.

[sanwah68]

Neriathale wrote:

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Personally, I am not too thrilled that in theory you could just run APs in home games and get a lot of stars, it feels a bit unfair to those who offered public tables. So if we are changing the star calculations, I would like to see a minimum number of required public tables.

Maybe make earning stars in some way contingent on the number of different players you have GM'd for as well as tables - 10 players minimum for 1 star, 20 for 2, 30 for 3... or something like that. It should be possible to calculate from the reported tables on the website.

I wouldn't like to see this, it punishes those who are in a area with a smallish population of gamers (I am in Australia). However, I wouldn't mind it if those games that are listed as public on the paizo website get full table points, with those who are private games get a lesser value.

[Hmm]

My issues with this is that we would run into issues over what is a public and what is a private game. It can be murky, especially when it comes to the world of online play. I'd rather not kick over that barrel of lemurs if I can avoid it.

[BretI]

In thinking more about this, as much as I might like to gain something in the new campaign for my current measly three stars it might be better if I don't.

We want new people to come into the campaign as part of PF2. The more of a head start we give the 'old guard', the harder anyone new has to work to catch up. I think that knowing that everyone is on an even playing field and that the new marshmallows indicate how much someone put into PF2 is likely to encourage more people than it discourages.

[sanwah68]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

My issues with this is that we would run into issues over what is a public and what is a private game. It can be murky, especially when it comes to the world of online play. I'd rather not kick over that barrel of lemurs if I can avoid it.

You are right, I didn't think how it would affect online where the lines could be very blurred. I withdraw the idea...

[Blind Prophet]

Judgmental Gnome Hmm said wrote:

My issues with this is that we would run into issues over what is a public and what is a private game. It can be murky, especially when it comes to the world of online play. I'd rather not kick over that barrel of lemurs if I can avoid it.

I completely agree. I run a privately public/publicly private set of games (core of 4/5 static players, w/ a pug for a 5th or 6th if they/I feel like they need it) and this just feels...awkward to say the least? It would be a loooooong time before i got my second star, thank you very much. :D

On an aside note, have there been any word of paizo converting dungeons over from 1e to 2e? Some of my players have been asking to do emerald spire again, "even if it's just for funsies". I'd love to give them a reason to delve it again.

Edit: I feel like it pertains here, because that dungeon helped me jump up in stars in the first place. :D

[lastblacknight]

We need to recognise the contribution of previous GM's (and also maintain the morale til 2.0 comes out).

Boons are always a good place to start, remember that these GM's will be paying for the new content as well (the players not so much). One of the things that annoyed me about Hasbro and why I didn't buy 5th edition was the attitude they have to the people who buy their product.

You also need to consider the other costs for these GM's, we'll be buying the new content on Herolab and other 3rd party products. So in effect they are paying for the same content two or three times.

I'd like to see a conversion guide too (if appropriate) for the campaigns and modules, scenarios that might give 2.0 credit in the new world.

[N N 959]

Seb Mullins wrote:

We need to recognise the contribution of previous GM's (and also maintain the morale til 2.0 comes out).

This is basically my stance, and not because I actually have that much personal contribution. I can't imagine how PFS can look a 5-star GM in the face and say thanks for everything, here is your free biscuit, now get in line with that guy who just started GMing yesterday.

There is no need to level the playing field because I don't see some inherent injustice or unfairness in transferring stars. If someone wants to GM 2e, I have no understanding how that would be constrained or muted because the existing GMs still have their stars. Is there someone out there whose interest and participation is undermined by existing GMs keeping their stars? If so, I would welcome a post by such a person to help me understand.

Conversely, I could see a whole lot of GMs just losing interest if stripped of their achievement or having it converted into some sort of service award. That makes no sense to me, so someone will have to explain it.