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


Pathfinder Society Playtest

151 to 200 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

N N 959 wrote:
having it converted into some sort of service award

But that’s exactly what stars are. They represent games GMd, nothing more.

3/5

outshyn wrote:
-medals and stars snipped-

Apart from medals being the new symbol (which I am not sure about), it never occurred to me that it would not work that way.

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.

Significant enough to be worth having and to acknowledge prior contributions. Small enough that it will not leave newer players feeling left out. Works for me!

_
glass.


I am coming to this party a bit late but I think that there is no reason to obsolete the star system. If you simply add a 6th star (and retain GM's ranking as is) everyone can be happy. GMs can continue earning credit for any game they GM for PF1 or PF2. There will also be a nice carrot waiting for them to incentivise them to jump through hoops to get to the 6th star. It also allows new and existing GMs to accumulate credit towards the new system.

5/5 ⦵⦵

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
But that’s exactly what stars are. They represent games GMd, nothing more.

The reason I busted my hump to get to 4 Star was so that I could run some of the Specials that required you to have 4 or more stars just to run them. So stars aren't 'just stars', they are the pre-requisite for running a range of content. They are re-rolls in games. They are access to the GM star boons.

They are also recognition for contribution to the campaign. 5 Star also represents that you were prepared to jump through more hoops than you should have had to for that last 'Star'.

Starfinder Novas were fair enough. New game, new campaign world - whole other universe. With PF 2.0 its the same old same old with only a small fraction of the rules and mechanics we're currently dealing with.

Anyhow, my pet hate is the slotted boon system. Happy to trade stars for that being ditched too.

The Exchange 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

It looks to me that PFS2 will be pretty much a new system from what we have in PFS1. Yes there will be a lot of similarities to PFS1, yes basic GM skills will carry over, but to think that you will have the same level of system mastery at day one, or the first time you run PFS2 games just because you are a PFS1 1,2,3,4, or 5 Star GM is not assured or should be assumed. I will still be racking up Stars in PFS1 after PFS2 starts just like I will be striving for Novas.
I really don't understand the hard feelings, they aren't taking your Stars away they are just giving you something new to add to your resume/PFS card!

5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Marc Waschle wrote:

It looks to me that PFS2 will be pretty much a new system from what we have in PFS1. Yes there will be a lot of similarities to PFS1, yes basic GM skills will carry over, but to think that you will have the same level of system mastery at day one, or the first time you run PFS2 games just because you are a PFS1 1,2,3,4, or 5 Star GM is not assured or should be assumed. I will still be racking up Stars in PFS1 after PFS2 starts just like I will be striving for Novas.

I really don't understand the hard feelings, they aren't taking your Stars away they are just giving you something new to add to your resume/PFS card!

Stars don't represent system mastery, rules knowledge or GM'ing skill, they represent time served. I have played in games run by terrible 5 star GM's and ones run by brilliant GM's with none.

What they do represent however is commitment to running games and to supporting the organised play programme. This programme isn't changing, the system mechanics may be but the Pathfinder Society continues. Storylines continue. The world continues.

Being told that our contribution at the point of the switch is now irrelevant is a bit disheartening.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
having it converted into some sort of service award
But that’s exactly what stars are. They represent games GMd, nothing more.

I am under the impression that PFS is considering the idea of removing everyone's stars for 2e and converting it into a boon or something. This categorically different than what we have now. Stars do represent games GM'd, but they also provide access to scenarios (if 5 star) give you bonuses on rerolls, determine how many games you can replay, etc.

If all the stars were removed (1 in my case) and I just has some new shiny in my hand, that would be annoying. At least on the forums, I find it valuable to know how many games someone has GM'd. It tells me about their level of commitment and their experience with the game. It doesn't mean they are always right or automatically have better ideas, but it does represent sweat equity in PFS which I feel is a valuable thing to advertise for PFS.

Scarab Sages 5/5

N N 959 wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
having it converted into some sort of service award
But that’s exactly what stars are. They represent games GMd, nothing more.

I am under the impression that PFS is considering the idea of removing everyone's stars for 2e and converting it into a boon or something. This categorically different than what we have now. Stars do represent games GM'd, but they also provide access to scenarios (if 5 star) give you bonuses on rerolls, determine how many games you can replay, etc.

If all the stars were removed (1 in my case) and I just has some new shiny in my hand, that would be annoying. At least on the forums, I find it valuable to know how many games someone has GM'd. It tells me about their level of commitment and their experience with the game. It doesn't mean they are always right or automatically have better ideas, but it does represent sweat equity in PFS which I feel is a valuable thing to advertise for PFS.

My understanding is that the "meaning" of PFS1 stars are not going to carry over to PFS2. But that your board handle will still show PFS1 stars.


Tallow wrote:
My understanding is that the "meaning" of PFS1 stars are not going to carry over to PFS2.

At this point I'm not sure what that means (no pun intended).

Scarab Sages 5/5

N N 959 wrote:
Tallow wrote:
My understanding is that the "meaning" of PFS1 stars are not going to carry over to PFS2.
At this point I'm not sure what that means (no pun intended).

Sure, I don't think anyone is 100% certain what it means.

What I think it means, is that your message board handle will still show that you have 5 stars. PFS2 will have a different GM designation (purple horseshoes maybe?) And that the typical GM Stars getting you access to exclusive content, re-roll bonus, etc. will not carry over to PFS2.

In other words, should I GM 30 scenarios in PFS2 (assuming the cutoff numbers remain the same), I would be 5 stars, 0 novas, and 2 horseshoes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So this is what caught my attention:

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.

That comes across as we'll give you something aesthetic, but the stars won't provide the functional benefit they did. Reading between the lines, it sounds like PFS just wants to wipe the slate clean.

In my opinion, this is playing with fire. Why not give them the same benefit they had? What is the upside of not giving 5 star GMs access to the same content they had access to in 1e? What is gained by disenfranchising all the GMs who put in real life hours into PFS campaign? Honestly, it's the 5* GMs who are most likely to continue to put in that same dedication to 2e, why would you risk robbing them of that motivation?

How is someone with 0 stars negatively impacted by letting a 5 star keep their benefits?

I don't get it.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Stars have and will continue to demonstrate what they always have, that you have GMd X number of games of PFS1. That's it. As stated, they demonstrate a commitment to PFS which will become PFS1 when 2E launches. You will still have 5 stars just like Eagles will always be the 2018 Super Bowl Champion. No one can take that away, but we will be starting a new campaign, a new "season" if you will. In that campaign, no one has demonstrated any commitment yet. If you already run enough games to have earned stars, assuming you continue to be involved in the campaign, you will earn horseshoes or lucky charms or whatever they call them. Again, that does not make your 5 stars mean anything less. It is a great accomplishment. If it turns out you like 2E and PFS2 as Paizo expects you will, how many "widgets" you have behind your name will reflect that commitment and you will again be rewarded with them.

Getting access to specials and exclusives was a reward created after the fact to give some tangible value to those who eared 4/5 stars. Many would call it an additional burden since it often means those are the only people who can run certain things in their area. Given they can rebuild the entire program knowing that "widgets" will be a thing, it stand to reason they may eliminate that aspect, especially since it is unlikely anyone with have 4-5 "widgets" for a couple of years.

Silver Crusade 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Again, that does not make your 5 stars mean anything less.

while that is technically correct it sure doesn't FEEL that way to me. It FEELS like Paizo is saying "Well, yeah, you DID spend well over 500 hours promoting PFS, but what have you done for me recently?"

It will likely have little or no effect on how much I GM PF2 but it does make me feel under appreciated and almost guarantees that I will NOT run any Regular mode PF1 games once PF2 goes live


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Stars have and will continue to demonstrate what they always have, that you have GMd X number of games of PFS1. That's it.

That's not "it." Stars have functional benefits both OOC and IC. Those benefits are the reward for having GM'd X number of games.

Quote:
In that campaign, no one has demonstrated any commitment yet.

That's not true, not even technically. 2e is a revision fo 1e. It is the same Pathfinder Society as 1e, it is the same OOC organization as 1e, and it is just a rewrite of the 1e rules. It's still called "Pathfinder Society" and the game is still "Pathfinder." 2e exist because 1e succeeded. 1e succeeded in part, because of the efforts of individuals like yourself.

Claiming that even a 1 star GM hasn't dedicated any commitment to 2e, is like claiming the people who helped you clean and renovate your old home that you sold and used the money to make the downpayment on your new home, haven't contributed anything. It's hogwash.

Every starred GM has exhibited a committed to the Pathfinder Society. Every book, novel, scenario, Con fee, and hour of personal time, went into supporting both Pathfinder and the Society? Are we still playing Pathfinder moving forward? Are we still doing it under the PFS aegis? Please don't insult us by telling us we haven't shown dedication to this organization because Paizo wanted to update the rules. That's really offensive.

Quote:
Again, that does not make your 5 stars mean anything less.

Let me repeat Tonya's words:

Tonya wrote:
but the team is looking at ways a GM's stars may impact pieces of version 2.

Sorry, that pretty clearly suggests the stars will mean a whole lot less and "may" have zero impact on 2e.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
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"?

felt the need to repost this.

Yeah - can we please start the New Campaign fresh - kind of like the way we did when we transitioned from LG-3.5 to PFS-1E?

I'd like that. I'd like to be able to point at my 1E GM stars as an accomplishment that I did during the 1E campaign - not as something to give me a "Founders Privilege" because I "got here first". It sort of bugs me to be granted privileges just because I'm older then the people starting in our hobby now.

Though, as I said in the post above, I guess I could just "sign up" as "a new member" and create a new account... but that is feeling a bit like I would be being deceptive. I don't want someone to assume I am trying to get some advantage by "acting like a newbie".

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

N N 959 wrote:
It is the same Pathfinder Society as 1e

I disagree. If you follow all their commentary, Paizo seems to be viewing PFS2 as a new/separate campaign. Sure, it will be using 2E which is an update to 1E not an entire new system, and the fluff/cannon seems to remain the same, but they are approaching the logistics and organization of PFS2 as a new campaign moreso than a continuation of the existing one. Fame/prestige does not have to roll over. It doesn't even need to exist at all simply because it did in PFS1. The same can be said for any of the rules in the Guide. If that continues to be true, whether or not we agree with that approach, we have to adjust how we are evaluating what should roll over into PFS2 and to what extent and what will be completely new/different.

N N 959 wrote:
Please don't insult us by telling us we haven't shown dedication to this organization because Paizo wanted to update the rules. That's really offensive.

That is predicated on your assumption that PFS2 is simply a continuation of PFS1, which I believe is a misunderstanding of how Paizo is approaching this transition.

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

Why are we talking about this like you have to earn the stars by a certain cut off? If someone earns 5 stars in PFS1 after PFS2 launches, are they really arse out of any considerations?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
That is predicated on your assumption that PFS2 is simply a continuation of PFS1, which I believe is a misunderstanding of how Paizo is approaching this transition.

You're trying to argue semantics. PFS is replacing 1e with 2e. The entire PFS campaign will cease to use the 1e rules and retain the name PFS and move to 2e. The more Paizo/PFS try to invent a reason to not recognize and continue to reward those who have been part of PFS before 2e, the more egregious this appears.

If PFS continued to support and publish content for 1e after 2e, we wouldn't be having this discussion

But more to the point, why is this necessary? Nobody has given a valid reason why reducing/removing the benefit of having GM'd X games in PFS is desirable moving forward. If there were some obvious reason then I could understand it.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

N N 959 wrote:
You're trying to argue semantics.

Sorry, I have to disagree. If they are intending PFS2 to be the launch of a new campaign, not simply the continuation of PFS1, that has a major impact on how they address changes to rules we have come to know. Just because they share the same campaign world does not mean they have to be a continuation of the same campaign. They shouldn't have to change the name to Champions of the Inner Sea Society (or whatever) in order to justify wanting to reset the campaign and make significant changes to the logistics of how it functions.

5/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
You're trying to argue semantics.
Sorry, I have to disagree. If they are intending PFS2 to be the launch of a new campaign, not simply the continuation of PFS1, that has a major impact on how they address changes to rules we have come to know. Just because they share the same campaign world does not mean they have to be a continuation of the same campaign. They shouldn't have to change the name to Champions of the Inner Sea Society (or whatever) in order to justify wanting to reset the campaign and make significant changes to the logistics of how it functions.

I had though this was a playtest board to solicit feedback on the proposed changes. Rather than telling those of us who feel somewhat put out about this change that our feelings are wrong it might be better to reflect on why many of us feel the way we do and whether that suggests that Paizo should consider carefully how to implement this change or reconsider the proposals.

I had sort of thought that was the point of this whole exercise.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

andreww wrote:
I had sort of thought that was the point of this whole exercise.

Oh I agree and it is, but there are going to be parameters that impact what things we can effect. For instance, we are not going to playtest whether or not there will be classes in 2E, that is already set. What we can affect is what those classes do, when and how. The same idea applies to OP. From what the team has said, it seems to indicate they intend PFS2 to be moreso a new campaign, not a continuation of PFS1. If that is true, as I believe, that will assist us in deciding what concepts from PFS1 to use in PFS2 and how. Whether that be how boons are implemented, how Fame/prestige works, the faction system, stars, etc.

If we accept, for the moment, that PFS2 will be a "new" campaign from their perspective, it is much easier to see how stars would not roll over from one campaign to the next. Its a question that needs to be definitively answered before we can talk about how the rules in PFS2 will work. Granted, it is easy to assume that PFS2 is merely a continuation of PFS1 and if that turns out to be the case, then the rolling over of stars has a much stronger position.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
. Just because they share the same campaign world does not mean they have to be a continuation of the same campaign. They shouldn't have to change the name to Champions of the Inner Sea Society (or whatever) in order to justify wanting to reset the campaign and make significant changes to the logistics of how it functions.

You're trying to rationalize a decision which you haven't shown is necessary and myself and several others have shown is potentially damaging.

Let me expose your rationalization:

1) If PFS decided to keep the same rules as 1e but wiped away Golarion and replaced it with Eberron, would you be arguing that the stars should be wiped?

2) If PFS kept Golarian and all the story arcs and simply changed the rules, would you be arguing that the stars should be wiped?

Combining 1 & 2, doesn't create some magical effect that justifies doing so.

You keep talking about the change as if some rule book justifies the action, it does not. We can contrast this with Starfinder Society, SFS didn't replace Pathfinder Society, so there is need to preserve/transfer merit. I can keep playing PFS in the face of SFS. Pathfinder 2e is wholesale replacing 1e. It doesn't matter what mechanical/cosmetic changes they are making. What's even worse is that you're suggesting that we should view PFS 1.e as dead and gone and having nothing to do with 2e. That's absurd on its face.

PFS is compelling those of use who want to keep playing Pathfinder to switch to 2e. It isn't voluntary. So Paizo is forcing the change and PFS is deciding to devalue what we've done to put them in the position to even introduce 2e. Sorry Bob, but that isn't how you treat loyal customers, unless you're WotC. I would hope Paizo would not go down that same road.

Quote:
They shouldn't have to change the name to Champions of the Inner Sea Society (or whatever) in order to justify wanting to reset the campaign and make significant changes to the logistics of how it functions.

They can reset the campaign all they want, but that doesn't justify diminishing the contribution that people have put into it PFS.

And yes, by using the same name, you are cashing in on the goodwill of PFS, generated by the army of starred GMs.

Scarab Sages 5/5 Venture-Captain, Netherlands aka Woran

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Honestly I started six replies but deleted them again because the more I tried to get the issue clear, the clearer it became I am unsure what is being argued about.

Is it that we dont know if there are ever going to be exclusive benefits like rerolls and exclusive scenarios?

Or is it that we have to earn a new set of credit in general?

Because as far as I can see, stars will remain next to your username, will remain on your printed card, and will continue to offer the same benefits for as long as you keep playing PFS1


Tineke Bolleman wrote:
... and will continue to offer the same benefits for as long as you keep playing PFS1

But PFS1 is going bye-bye. Let me ask you, why shouldn't the same benefits apply to 2e?

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

N N 959 wrote:
But PFS1 is going bye-bye.

It is?

1/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I suspect that N N has a very limited gaming group in their area, and as life has this way of forcing tight time constraints on play, the choice would then turn into PF1/PF1(CORE)/SF/PF2 where there was as of nine months ago PF1/PF1(CORE).

And since PF2 will be getting the support, there will be more motivation to run with 'the newer thing' vs. 'the older thing'.

It's a valid concern, and I don't see any good way to address it at the moment without pissing someone off. It'll require the skills of an elite team of Diplomancers to pull of this Chief Executive Foreign Power Visit....

Shadow Lodge 5/5

Funny you should mention that...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
But PFS1 is going bye-bye.
It is?
John Compton wrote:
A new edition inspires changes in other programs, including Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild. When the new edition releases in August 2019, we will be launching a Pathfinder Society campaign using the new rules. Scenarios from that month onward will use the new edition, but that doesn't stop you from continuing to play first edition adventures (hundreds scenarios and dozens of sanctioned modules and Adventure Paths) with your first edition PCs.

I can still play AD&D 1e. But nobody supports it. Nobody is writing new content, there is no Organized play supported by WoTC. Do you think the PDT will continue to answer questions on 1e? What about PFS staff? For how long?

If PFS says that they'll give 1e the full support that they are giving 2e, you know, like they are doing with PFS even though SFS is a thing, then I'll withdraw my comments. Somehow I don't think that's how it's going to play out.

Look, if I was Paizo/PFS, I would be doubling down on all the starred GMs and even more so on your 5 stars. I would give starred GMs extra benefits for playing 2e, because Paizo obviously believes the future of Pathfinder is 2e and the starred GMs have already shown commitment. Why in god's name would you not want to incentivize GMs who have shown commitment to PFS and entice them to quickly and thoroughly embrace 2e? Tonya's comments read like the opposite of what they should be doing.

There's a maxim in marketing that it costs you twice as much to get new costumers as it does to keep existing customers. Starred GMs are existing customers. It is beyond me that PFS is even suggesting something that might turn off invested GMs. We already know we can't take our characters with us. Is possibly alienating your most invested customers really the right move? It comes across as something born from a groupthink session.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
But PFS1 is going bye-bye.
It is?

It is for me. I've played just about everything so I'll have nothing TO play in 2019. Core games are already rare and will probably get far rarer

The power creep has already come close to getting me to quit running PFS in regular mode. If PFS2 is more balanced that is what I'll run. If it isn't I'll likely just quit as a GM

Silver Crusade 5/5

N N 959 wrote:

Is possibly alienating your most invested customers really the right move?

It actually might be. GMs burn out, they move on to other things. I have no idea how many of the current crop of 5 star GMs will be active 18 months from now but I'd bet its substantially less than 100%. Quite

possibly incentivizing new GMs is a higher priority and starting fresh may help that.

I think the bigger risk might be alienating the 3 and 4 star GMs who are less likely to make the push for 5 star status

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

N N 959 wrote:
Is possibly alienating your most invested customers really the right move?

That depends heavily on what side of the argument you are on and their perception of what the majority might want. I am not keeping score, but I have read and heard a lot of commentary about people wanting a fresh start from multistar GMs who would be most affected by this issue. 2E and PFS2 is change and change will cause some people to quit no matter what direction you go. The issue is how to minimize the effect. If they determine that leaning towards a clean, fresh start is what is wanted moreso than a continuation of what is existing, then the decision what to do becomes easier.

Your position is no different than mine with respect to replay. You want the stars to carry over, otherwise they risk losing you as a player. I do not want replay expanded (in fact I would like it more limited) and if they expand it, they risk losing me as a customer. It would be arrogant of me to think that Paizo is intentionally trying to make me quit if they expanded replay. If they determine that is what the preponderance of the community wants, they should do it despite how it affects me. The same goes for stars, or any of the myriad of rules decisions they have to make for PFS2. We do not want you or anyone to quit playing, but the reality is you cannot make all the people happy all the time. The have some hard decisions to make regarding the new campaign and they are bound to make some people unhappy no matter what they do. The focus is on minimizing the unhappiness and hoping that whatever the final version looks like will encourage new players to join or the return of players who have left.


Paul Jackson wrote:

Quite

possibly incentivizing new GMs is a higher priority and starting fresh may help that.

How does reducing the mechanical benefit of PFS 1 stars incentivize new GMs?

Scarab Sages 5/5

N N 959 wrote:
Paul Jackson wrote:

Quite

possibly incentivizing new GMs is a higher priority and starting fresh may help that.
How does reducing the mechanical benefit of PFS 1 stars incentivize new GMs?

Not sure what you mean by "mechanical benefit."

If you are referring to the fact that PFS1 stars grant you the ability to run exclusive content and grant you an extra bonus per star for re-rolls... then reducing that wouldn't really incentivize new GMs. I don't buy that argument that new GMs would feel disenfranchised just because some 5-star PFS1 yahoo had more bonus than they did. I would actually think it would entice them to see what the PFS2 horseshoe (arbitrary symbol choice for what a PFS2 star would be) would grant them and incentivize them to GM PFS2 (more).

If you are referring to PFS1 GMs having more mechanical mastery and thus should get to keep their bonuses in PFS2, I have to wholly disagree. It appears that the system, from what I've seen so far, is going to be different enough, that any system mastery a 5-star GM may have had in PFS1 is probably going to hinder them in PFS2.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
That depends heavily on what side of the argument you are on and their perception of what the majority might want. I am not keeping score, but I have read and heard a lot of commentary about people wanting a fresh start from multistar GMs who would be most affected by this issue.

Could you be more specific about what this means? When I started playing PFS, the existence of starred GMs had no bearing on my deciding to play. If anything, I was encouraged by seeing the level of commitment of the GMs. Seeing GMs with stars participate in these types of discussions is, for me, a positive for PFS.

Quote:
Your position is no different than mine with respect to replay. You want the stars to carry over, otherwise they risk losing you as a player.

Normally, I might agree with you. But this isn't really about me, it's about how Paizo is treating its most loyal and committed customer base. I know how much time and energy its cost me to get one star. I can't even imagine the capital and personal outlay it takes to get 5 stars. It's beyond me how PFS could even suggest wiping the slate clean. How can PFS, as an organization, diminish the value of people who have given years of their life to it? Sure, if they are going to kill Pathfinder as a product and go with OregonTrail-Finder, then I could see a discussion on it, but even then, why would you not want to encourage dedicated gamers to become invested in your new game? Sure, you're not goin to get everyone to come over because of a reward, but that doesn't mean you don't try.

Quote:
The same goes for stars, or any of the myriad of rules decisions they have to make for PFS2.

I don't see this as tantamount to a rule decision. A rule decision affects everyone equally. PFS doesn't know a priori who is affected by a rule and those affected by rule changes are essentially random. That's not the case with this. PFS knows exactly who the starred GMs are and they know what they've required of GMs to get those stars. There is no rule of Pathfinder that is mandating any particular action. PFS is free to grant full face and credit.

Quote:
The have some hard decisions to make regarding the new campaign and they are bound to make some people unhappy no matter what they do.

Well, I'd really like to understand who is unhappy with stars meaning the same before and after 2e and what the basis for that unhappiness is.


Tallow wrote:


Not sure what you mean by "mechanical benefit."

It means whatever IC and OOC benefit I got for GMing a bazillion games in PFS 1e, follows me to 2e. And if the IC rules for 2e make some of the mechanical benefits incompatible with 2e, then I get the benefit as a new GM with the same amount of stars.

Quote:
If you are referring to the fact that PFS1 stars grant you the ability to run exclusive content and grant you an extra bonus per star for re-rolls... then reducing that wouldn't really incentivize new GMs. I don't buy that argument that new GMs would feel disenfranchised just because some 5-star PFS1 yahoo had more bonus than they did. I would actually think it would entice them to see what the PFS2 horseshoe (arbitrary symbol choice for what a PFS2 star would be) would grant them and incentivize them to GM PFS2 (more).

Yes, I am speaking more to this, as this is what I perceive that PFS is contemplating the removal of.

Quote:
If you are referring to PFS1 GMs having more mechanical mastery and thus should get to keep their bonuses in PFS2...

Not sure what you mean by "mechanical mastery" or the bonuses that one gets for that.

Scarab Sages 5/5 Venture-Captain, Netherlands aka Woran

N N 959 wrote:
Bob Jonquet wrote:


Your position is no different than mine with respect to replay. You want the stars to carry over, otherwise they risk losing you as a player.

Normally, I might agree with you. But this isn't really about me, it's about how Paizo is treating its most loyal and committed customer base. I know how much time and energy its cost me to get one star. I can't even imagine the capital and personal outlay it takes to get 5 stars. It's beyond me how PFS could even suggest wiping the slate clean. How can PFS, as an organization, diminish the value of people who have given years of their life to it? Sure, if they are going to kill Pathfinder as a product and go with OregonTrail-Finder, then I could see a discussion on it, but even then, why would you not want to encourage dedicated gamers to become invested in your new game? Sure, you're not goin to get everyone to come over because of a reward, but that doesn't mean you don't try.

Honestly, from what Ive seen so far, its mostly the one and two star GMs who are up in arms about this.

Most of the five stars Ive seen who weigh in, dont really seem to care about starting over.

I personally am happy to start over, and I rather not get a special benefit, just because Ive been hanging around longer.

Dark Archive 4/5

I think the new blog lays out that the org play team is thinking very clearly and deliberately about all of the relevant tradeoffs and doing so with a high degree of transparency. As laid out I'm a big fan of the subsidized metric approach. It recognizes that there will be a different rules set, but GMs at all levels receive consideration for all of their work. It even creates an ongoing incentive to earn more stars.


Tineke Bolleman wrote:


Honestly, from what Ive seen so far, its mostly the one and two star GMs who are up in arms about this.
Most of the five stars Ive seen who weigh in, dont really seem to care about starting over.

Including this one, there are about 45 posts from 0, 1, and 2 star GMs out of 187 (now 188 on account of the ninja). The rest of the posts are from 3 star and higher and the majority are from 5 star GMs.

Most of my posts are an attempt to have it explained why this needs to take place.

Back on the 1st page, Tallow posted this:

Tallow wrote:

I'm not so much worried about what my Stars mean in PFS2. I'm fine with reverting to zero stars. I'm also fine with keeping stars and having a new designation for PFS2.

I just hope that my Campaign Service Coin remains viable.

So obviously wiping the slate completely clean is not okay with those who have benefits. Not sure why it's okay to wipe out contributions to PFS in the form of games GM'd, but not Campaign Service Awards.

Grand Lodge 3/5 ⦵⦵

Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Full disclosure - I skipped all of pages 2 and 3 and the worst flaming of Page 4 (life is too short), so maybe someone had this idea already:

Doesn't it seem like a hybrid method makes the most sense? Like, campaign-specific boons (Like the GM Boon for PFS1) should be specifically related to just the PFS2 credit - things like reroll bonuses, the aforementioned GM boon, should be tied to campaign-related stars, but I feel like things like potentially race boons, special scenario access, things along those lines should be based on your Paizo cred - maybe there's some things that combine your Stars, Novas, and 4-Leaf Clovers instead of being based on one campaign or another.

Silver Crusade 5/5

Tallow wrote:


Not sure what you mean by "mechanical benefit."

There are at least 2 that I quite like

1) bonus on rerolls
2) the fact that all of my characters have access to someracialmspells (especially blend)

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Ok fine if we need to have a more-than-two-star person to stick up to have the right to have this discussion, I'll be that guy.

I'm not convinced of the virtue of starting afresh. I'm not terrified of it, but I'm also not convinced of the benefit.

There are aspects of PFS2 that will clearly benefit from a clean slate. I don't see character conversion working out, so a clean slate there makes sense. Getting rid of ages of buried rulings in the forum is also a clean slate I look forward to.

But I really don't see the benefit of starting over with glyphs so much. It sounds a bit like Clean Slate is a sort of religious doctrine that can be used as an argument to tear anything down just because we gotta have a clean slate man, we just gotta!

To reiterate: I'm not up in arms on this issue. But I'm also not convinced starting over is all that useful.

Silver Crusade 5/5 ⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Paul Jackson wrote:
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
N N 959 wrote:
But PFS1 is going bye-bye.
It is?

It is for me. I've played just about everything so I'll have nothing TO play in 2019. Core games are already rare and will probably get far rarer

The power creep has already come close to getting me to quit running PFS in regular mode. If PFS2 is more balanced that is what I'll run. If it isn't I'll likely just quit as a GM

Paul Jackson wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

Is possibly alienating your most invested customers really the right move?

It actually might be. GMs burn out, they move on to other things. I have no idea how many of the current crop of 5 star GMs will be active 18 months from now but I'd bet its substantially less than 100%. Quite

possibly incentivizing new GMs is a higher priority and starting fresh may help that.

I think the bigger risk might be alienating the 3 and 4 star GMs who are less likely to make the push for 5 star status

I think those two might be somewhat connected at least locally, from my (local) sample size I expect a lot of very experienced GMs to only offer PFS1 tables on request and even then only in a private setting (so they can pretty much make sure that they don't have any unplanned powerful characters at their table - or the table simply does not happen).

Personally, I got my 5th star quite some time ago.. after about 1-1/2 years after I started playing PFS, and with my current rank I really only would need 3 stars to offer everything.

I really don't mind having to earn more "glyphs", the mechanical benefits might have helped to motivate me in some instances but they were never the real target - I mainly wanted to give something back to our local GMs who worked themselves to the bone for us.

Of course, while it does not affect me, other GMs will be less motivated to start the "grind" for stars again... which might be a good thing (after some years in organized play, my views of "martyr GMs" who cannibalize their own play opportunities to GM has changed quite a bit - it might not be that beneficial for the community).

5/5 ⦵⦵⦵ Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein-Main aka GreyYeti

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tineke Bolleman wrote:


Honestly, from what Ive seen so far, its mostly the one and two star GMs who are up in arms about this.
Most of the five stars Ive seen who weigh in, dont really seem to care about starting over.

I personally am happy to start over, and I rather not get a special benefit, just because Ive been hanging around longer.

5 star GM here who is really angry about that. Of the 3 5 star gm who are active locally, 2 hate the reset, and our 1 4 star is also unhappy.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

N N 959 wrote:
Including this one...

This and other 2E conversations are occurring in a lot more locations than this thread and the Paizo forums. There are more players who don't frequent the Paizo messageboards than those who do.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Replay, Rewards, and Rebuilds blog.

Official GM Stars discussion.


Steven Schopmeyer wrote:

Replay, Rewards, and Rebuilds blog.

Official GM Stars discussion.

Thank you for the redirect.

5/5 Venture-Agent, Australia—NSW—Sydney aka lastblacknight

Perhaps some sort of blend of options 2 and 3. Recognising the eight years, the effort and rules knowledge I put into my local society. Especially from a business which over the next version (marketing package) is going to require my help and time to build to community moving forward.

Asking/expecting everyone to start over isn't acceptable - its ungrateful and also disrespectful.

Also the rules knowledge for me to pick up Starfinder and PFS2 isn't going to be a stretch. I shouldn't be starting at the same level of a GM who picks up a rulebook from tomorrow.

Here's hoping our thoughts are being heard by those who matter, thanks for your time.


Seb Mullins wrote:


Asking/expecting everyone to start over isn't acceptable - its ungrateful and also disrespectful.

Yeah, that's kind of what I thought. But it's not entirely clear what is meant by starting over. I can certainly understand a desire by PFS to identify games GM'd under 1e vs 2e. What I don't understand is why there would be a motivation for PFS to have the rewards for a 5 Star 1e Gm be different from a 5 Star 2e GM? Especially when PFS has made it clear they won't be going full 2e for another year minimum and you'd want all GMs to keep GMing 1e games right up until 2e, and possibly even past that to support people who don't want to play 2e, but still enjoy PFS.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Regional Venture-Coordinator, Great Lakes aka TwilightKnight

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Seb Mullins wrote:
Asking/expecting everyone to start over isn't acceptable - its ungrateful and also disrespectful.

That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it, but it is not a universal opinion on this subject. I do not think anyone can say with any reliability which group of opinions is the largest and therefore the one we should gravitate to. For every person who says what you said, there is someone asking for a clean restart. In the end, I do not envy Tonya/John/Linda/Thursty/Mike's position of having to figure out which way to go. If players are an earnest as their commentary, it is clear we are going to lose some players no matter which system is used.


Bob Jonquet wrote:
. For every person who says what you said, there is someone asking for a clean restart.

Can you explain this to me? There was some discussion about campaign coins or something and I didn't see anyone arguing for those to be wiped out, in fact, John Compton said those coins would not be wiped out.

How are people who want a clean start, negatively impacted by having their stars carried over? Can't they just start over with a new ID?

How are people who have not GM'd in 1e, negatively impacted by stars from 1e still having the same value in 2e?

I've been asking this question for several pages and I haven't seen someone answer it other than to say they don't think they should have an advantage, and yet that's exactly what Option 2 is giving.

151 to 200 of 232 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society Playtest / Are we going to have to start over earning DM stars in the 2.0 campaign? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.