GM Stars

[Tonya Woldridge]

Previously, the Org Play team noted that GM stars will not directly carry over into Pathfinder Society 2nd Edition.

This thread is for the discussion of what impact GM stars may have in Pathfinder Society 2nd Edition launching in 2019.

For more context to this thread, visit Pathfinder Society 2: Replay, Rewards, and Rebuilds and Pathfinder Playtest and Pathfinder Society FAQ.

[Hmm]

LISTED OPTIONS FROM JOHN COMPTON’S BLOG

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I need a quick reference when discussing options, so here it is:

John Compton wrote:

Option 1—New Metric: Everyone retains their GM stars, which correspond to the first edition campaign. For the second edition campaign, we introduce another 0–5 scale metric that's similar to stars/novas. We've tossed around several names for these, including glyphs and sigils, but there's no final decision on this matter. Glyphs/Sigils would have a fairly similar role to GM stars but be specific to the second edition campaign.

Option 2—Subsidized Metric: This functions as Option 1, but the GMs stars reduce the number of games required to earn glyphs/sigils. Two stars reduces the number of games run to earn one's second glyph/sigil by 10. Likewise three stars reduces the number of games run to earn the third and fourth glyphs/sigils by 10 respectively. Finally, a five-star GM reduces the number of games needed to earn the fifth glyph/sigil by 20. It ends up looking like this for a five-star GM.

1st Glyph/Sigil: 10 games
2nd Glyph/Sigil: 20 games (10 less than normal)
3rd Glyph/Sigil: 40 games (20 less than normal)
4th Glyph/Sigil: 70 games (30 less than normal)
5th Glyph/Sigil: 100 games (50 less than normal)

Basically, having a bunch of GM stars conveys that you're already an accomplished GM, so attaining a similar rank in the second edition would be easier.

Option 3—New Metric with Reward: This functions as Option 1, but the GM stars provide a carry-over benefit as a thank you for a GM's efforts in the first edition campaign. Assume that the benefit is something interesting and flavorful but not something that grants an overtly significant power boost. This might be a special character background, fancy item, title, or the like.

Option 4—Something Else: We can, of course, explore other options. As noted in the "Three Competing Interests" section, there's a balancing act between old player loyalty and new player accessibility—ensuring that GMs feel they're getting their due without locking too much away from newer players who never had the same opportunity.

Where We Are Now: Our discussions so far have brought up sundry variations on the Subsidized Metric and other models. That's sparked ongoing conversations with our tech colleagues to assess what's possible and with what required resources. We can cook up clever ways to connect GM stars and the glyphs/sigils, but ultimately we need to ensure that our solutions work for our co-workers. In the meantime, we're continuing to debate the merits of each approach, and we're interested in your feedback.

★ --- ★ --- ★ --- ★

My initial reaction to the 2E announcement was a rant in which I strongly supported Option 2: Subsidized Stars. Since then, my hard stance on this topic has mellowed. To me, what we do here depends on the vision for what GM Stars mean. I’ve opened up a thread: What do GM Stars signify to you? to get at people’s conceptions and visions of what they mean.

If GM Stars are intended to show rules knowledge, then we should go with Option 1.

If GM Stars are supposed to show commitment to the campaign and overall GM experience, Option 2 is still very appealing to me.

However... ultimately I want what is good for the campaign. Although the thought of starting over made me horribly upset, I’ve calmed down some. If you think it’s best for the longterm health of the campaign to make a clean start, then that’s what I’ll choose.

TL/DR: Prefer Option 2, will accept Option 1.

[eddv]

That is very helpful thank you Hmm.

I actually quite like Option 2,the subsidized metric, as a solution to the issue - just so long as the old metric remains easily proven/referenced for continued 1e play.

[Backpack]

I would enjoy an overlay of the runes onto the stars. While I agree that starfinder, e1, and e2 should be treated as different things I don't think they are completely unrelated. If I saw someone was a 1 Gylph Gm my impression would be different than a GM with 5 stars and 1 glyph. I'm sure the art team could make it work, but I lack the coding knowledge to know how that would be implemented.

Edit: but in terms of acrruing the glyphs I think they should be gained completely separate

[James Krolak]

Option 2 is my preference, but I would be fine with options 1 or 3, as well.

I'll probably just barely hit my 4th star by the end of this calendar year, so I'm not as invested into the system as others that have GM'd 200+ tables. Those who have GM'd a lot have learned some essential lessons on how to GM in general. Whether it's the current edition or a new one built off of it, there is a lot that transfers over. So, it would seem inconsiderate to not somehow acknowledge that those folks probably know how to run an organized play scenario more than someone who starts GMing for the first time in August of 2019--even if the edition of the rules is new to everyone.

[Kate Baker]

I think I like Option 3 the best, but Option 2 seems like the best compromise.

[Alanya]

For now, I prefer option 2.

Option 3 doesn't help new players, and may just make them feel like they're missing out on cool character options that they'll never have the chance to attain. Sure, they can still GM games for 1E, but in some areas that sounds like it may be close to impossible due to lack of games, or they may just not like the previous version enough to have been involved in it. The only way this option would work is if you can then later get those same options using 2E glyphs/whatever (much like the 3 Masters GM boons we currently have).

Edit: If the Organized Play Team does go with option 1, I won't be heartbroken. I'm very happy to have reached 5 stars, but I didn't do all that GMing only for the stars. I continue to GM because I enjoy giving a table a great experience, not to be able to say I've GMed X amount of games. Regardless of which option is chosen, I will continue to GM for whichever campaigns our lodge wants to play, regardless of what it means for my stats.

[GM Wageslave]

There are GMs out there who, through no fault of their own, have had a significant number of tables that 'don't fire'.

I'm one of them.

I've been GMing for almost three years now, but due to workload (work in retail) and personal health reasons I have to sort of pick and choose carefully how much I load up my personal schedule.

I burnt out on two GM 'grinds' in a different organized campaign.

I don't wish that fate on anyone, but it would and has happened.

If we went to the Option 2 Metric, in light of the above, the humble request would be 25% of whatever the identifier is for every ranking. (Yes, that includes 1 Star).

If we factor in Novas (another organized campaign that GMs are showing a committment for) then let's reduce for those folks who have both Novas and Stars the table cost by 50%.

Whatever option is ultimately decided upon, please consider the fact that there are those people who are devoted to the campaign but cannot push the hundreds of tables that are required currently in 5e to reach the ranks of the elite.

Shouldn't we also be focusing on quality as well as quantity? How can we make this happen as an organization moving forwards?

[N N 959]

Why not let each GM choose what they want?

Alternatively, I vote Option 4:

1. Add the 1e games to the 2e games and award benefits based on total games GMd in either system.

2. Sure, track 2e games with a different symbol, but five 1e games and five 2e games still get you the same benefit as a 1 star GM equivalent in 2e, which means you'll need a Total Games GM'd tracker.

3. The benefits are the same no matter which system you've GM'd the games in, ten games in 1e or 2e gets the same reroll benefit.

4. Increase the total level of benefit for games GM'd but you don't have to make it on the same geometric scale. You could flatten it out after 150 games to a new level every X games. This means current 5 star Gms don't have to GM another 150 games to get another service award.

In short, all games count to the same reward, increase the level of rewards given, but track the games from each version separately for posterity.

[GM Aerondor]

I think hmmm has hit the nail on the head with "What do the stars mean to you?" question.

To me they are a combination of dedication and rules knowledge.

I'm totally happy with option 1. I don't see a need for option 2, dedicated GMs will pick up their stars pretty rapidly. Perhaps a related question may be "What benefit do Stars/runes give?" I like the re-roll that stars give in the current PFS, although some don't.

Don't get me wrong. If I can get a discount on my PFSv2 runes in exchange for my PFS stars, that is sweet. But probably not necessary and might be a little complex to actually implement.

In short, keep showing folk their stars and novas - that will show their dedication on the boards. But use a new metric for the new game.

[Magabeus]

I am not so sure about option 2. If campaign leadership wants to bring in glyphs than those glyphs should mean the same for everyone.

As the proposal stands a 5 glyph GM could be someone with between 100 to 150 GM credits, based on the number of stars that GM has. I don't think that is fair to newer GMs. Either keep stars for both current and 2nd edition (similar to core and standard) or make a new system (like PFS and SFS), but in my opinion this is bound to lead to unhappiness somewhere as people will wonder who is a 'real' 5 glyph GM and who is a subsidized 5 glyph GM.

There are also some questions that are very likely to be asked:

Will there be a single cut-off point (August 2019) when the discount on games GMs will be calculated?

If not: would a future 5 glyph GM also receive a discount when he or she starts GMing 1st edition scenarios?

Being an accomplished GM also helps in GMing SFS, will there be a retroactive discount for Novas?

I like option 3 the most, as that represents an additional "thank you" above the rewards stars currently give. That reward could be tiered based on the number of stars someone has by August 2019, or not.

[Nathan Goodrich]

Gerard van Konijnenburg wrote:

As the proposal stands a 5 glyph GM could be someone with between 100 to 150 GM credits, based on the number of stars that GM has.

That seems an odd way of doing the math. It seems to me that the range of GM Credits would be 150-250. You are completely discounting the work /effort component of Pathfinder 1.0 stars which just can't be right.

For what it's worth, I've never viewed GM Stars as representing rules knowledge.

I'm generally in favor of option 2.

[Naren Prasad]

Instead of “glyphs” or “sigils”, how about “runes”...?

(cross-posted from my comment in John’s blog)

[Madclaw]

I personally would like a hybridization of Option 2 and 3. It not only gives a reward but makes earning the new option easier. I think it would go to help assuage a lot of people who have put in a lot of effort over the past 10 years, myself included.

[Madclaw]

Gerard van Konijnenburg wrote:

I am not so sure about option 2. If campaign leadership wants to bring in glyphs than those glyphs should mean the same for everyone.

As the proposal stands a 5 glyph GM could be someone with between 100 to 150 GM credits, based on the number of stars that GM has. I don't think that is fair to newer GMs. Either keep stars for both current and 2nd edition (similar to core and standard) or make a new system (like PFS and SFS), but in my opinion this is bound to lead to unhappiness somewhere as people will wonder who is a 'real' 5 glyph GM and who is a subsidized 5 glyph GM.

There are also some questions that are very likely to be asked:

Will there be a single cut-off point (August 2019) when the discount on games GMs will be calculated?

If not: would a future 5 glyph GM also receive a discount when he or she starts GMing 1st edition scenarios?

Being an accomplished GM also helps in GMing SFS, will there be a retroactive discount for Novas?

I like option 3 the most, as that represents an additional "thank you" above the rewards stars currently give. That reward could be tiered based on the number of stars someone has by August 2019, or not.

I don't think that there will be a worry about who is a "real five star" and isn't. Part of the star system includes acknowledging time and effort put forth. People that already have stars have put in that time and effort and a discount wouldn't and shouldn't cheapen that to someone who wasn't part of PFS 1. I firmly think it's a non-issue.

[Davor Firetusk]

All things being equal I'd rather sit down with an unknown 'subsidized' 5 glyph GM then a 'real' one. I wouldn't mind subsidizing Novas either. I also think not having a cut-off creates a nice incentive for people to keep running 1E games.

Back to my original thought I know a subsidized GM already has a boatload of experience in Golarion and with public play in general. I don't really think in the vast majority of cases there is a significant improvement in rules knowledge between table 100 and table 150. So I'd rather take the GM I know has been running public games for years and has done it over 250 times, then someone who has only GMed 150. The accumulation of experience over a longer period of time with different rules sets even more so than the extra 100 tables would make them worthy of equal recognition.

Undoubtedly there are plenty of example where that would lead to picking the worse GM, but that would be true to picking between any GMs on a single piece of information, in this case stars.

[TriOmegaZero]

I'd like to see stars kept for table counts for both 1e and 2e. Glyphs/runes/whatever can be for a different metric. Maybe they aren't awarded for longevity, but for quality. Either from proven acts of service or via a qualifying test. This may not be feasible for the Paizo teams to implement, but it would address the question of what each award means in the eyes of the player base.

[ProfessorC]

Stars/Glyphs/Novas say very little about your GM ability and more about commitment to the campaign. It doesn't really make a definitive remark on your knowledge of the system. So I do think you should reward the dedicated GMs for your PF1 campaign in PF2. GMs make the campaign go around and keeping them as happy as possible is always good for the game. Also keeping your dedicated fans as happy as possible also is good for the game.

I do think you should reward people for dedication to the new campaign, so a separate system is good. This makes business sense as it will help with buy-in to the system/campaign.

As someone who would not qualify, and probably will never run enough PF1 to even get 1 star, I am OK with people who have run enough to receive the discount based on earlier participation. I'll just take pride in I did it the hard way :P.

[Ginasteri]

As a soon to be 4 star GM who was hoping to get to 5 (I probably still could)...

I prefer a complete reset for 2E. Leave the 1E stars in place, but they don't really have any effect on 2E.

The Stars is an actual mechanic in 1E--you can't run some adventures until you have 4 stars. I understand the reasoning behind that *is* system mastery. It would make no sense to have those for a system that no one has mastered yet.

[Magabeus]

Nathan Goodrich wrote:

Gerard van Konijnenburg wrote:

As the proposal stands a 5 glyph GM could be someone with between 100 to 150 GM credits, based on the number of stars that GM has.

That seems an odd way of doing the math. It seems to me that the range of GM Credits would be 150-250. You are completely discounting the work /effort component of Pathfinder 1.0 stars which just can't be right.

My apologies, I meant in the specific system: Pathfinder edition 2.

For what it's worth: I am also ignoring the games ran for Pathfinder that were not reported, Starfinder Society and other roleplaying games.

[Ryan Blomquist]

Repost from here:

I'll advocate for Option 1. This is a new campaign, and just like with SFS experience in PF1S should not give you a boost in PF2S. I also consider it unfair that someone new could be joining the campaign, "At ground level," when it first launches at Gen Con 2019 and yet already be on unequal footing with another player by virtue of that player's participating in a different campaign. Strikes me as not equitable, and so I'd prefer there be no benefit for PF1S stars in PF2S.

[Partizanski]

Option 2 or 3.

I like the idea that of option 3 giving you a non-mechanical title. Just something to show down the line what you did in the old campaign.

[Gary Bush]

I think option 2 is a good place to start. I understand the concern about new GMs, but in my mind, fairness can't be obtained.

A GM life is not fair. So I prefer to default toward current GMs.

My only real problem is how the math is calculated.

Quote:

1st Glyph/Sigil: 10 games

2nd Glyph/Sigil: 20 games (10 less than normal)
3rd Glyph/Sigil: 40 games (20 less than normal)
4th Glyph/Sigil: 70 games (30 less than normal)
5th Glyph/Sigil: 100 games (50 less than normal)

Up until the the 5th level, I can see the math. The reduction in the number of tables to earn a Glyph/Sigil is calculated as (Stars earned - 1) X 10. But at the 5th level, it becomes (Stars earned X 10). If using the same formula as the other 4, it should be a discount of 40 less than normal.

Maybe it is the intent to allow 5 Star GMs an extra benefit. I don't have a problem with that. But I like consistency and I think the formula should be same for all levels.

[Gary Bush]

Gerard van Konijnenburg wrote:

There are also some questions that are very likely to be asked:

Will there be a single cut-off point (August 2019) when the discount on games GMs will be calculated?

If not: would a future 5 glyph GM also receive a discount when he or she starts GMing 1st edition scenarios?

Being an accomplished GM also helps in GMing SFS, will there be a retroactive discount for Novas?

I like option 3 the most, as that represents an additional "thank you" above the rewards stars currently give. That reward could be tiered based on the number of stars someone has by August 2019, or not.

I too have similar concerns. Will there be a cut-off date for earning Stars and the discount that they will give for earning Glyph/Sigils?

To make the programming easier for the board, there may have to be.

I would like there to be no cut-off as I plan to continue to earn Stars even after PF2.0 comes out. I will not be able to earn a 5th Star because I can't get to the specials required.

I don't see how GMing SFS should have any effect on PFS1.0 or PFS2.0. It is a different campaign with different rules. I don't think any discounts need to applied to SFS Novas for PFS Stars.

[roysier]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

LISTED OPTIONS FROM JOHN COMPTON’S BLOG

I don’t know about the rest of you, but I need a quick reference when discussing options, so here it is:

John Compton wrote:

Option 1—New Metric: Everyone retains their GM stars, which correspond to the first edition campaign. For the second edition campaign, we introduce another 0–5 scale metric that's similar to stars/novas. We've tossed around several names for these, including glyphs and sigils, but there's no final decision on this matter. Glyphs/Sigils would have a fairly similar role to GM stars but be specific to the second edition campaign.

Option 2—Subsidized Metric: This functions as Option 1, but the GMs stars reduce the number of games required to earn glyphs/sigils. Two stars reduces the number of games run to earn one's second glyph/sigil by 10. Likewise three stars reduces the number of games run to earn the third and fourth glyphs/sigils by 10 respectively. Finally, a five-star GM reduces the number of games needed to earn the fifth glyph/sigil by 20. It ends up looking like this for a five-star GM.

1st Glyph/Sigil: 10 games
2nd Glyph/Sigil: 20 games (10 less than normal)
3rd Glyph/Sigil: 40 games (20 less than normal)
4th Glyph/Sigil: 70 games (30 less than normal)
5th Glyph/Sigil: 100 games (50 less than normal)

Basically, having a bunch of GM stars conveys that you're already an accomplished GM, so attaining a similar rank in the second edition would be easier.

Option 3—New Metric with Reward: This functions as Option 1, but the GM stars provide a carry-over benefit as a thank you for a GM's efforts in the first edition campaign. Assume that the benefit is something interesting and flavorful but not something that grants an overtly significant power boost. This might be a special character background, fancy item, title, or the like.

Option 4—Something Else: We can, of course, explore other options. As noted in the "Three Competing Interests" section, there's a balancing act

...

No matter what choice is made I believe there should be something beyond 5 stars. I've seen multiple cases of people shooting for 5 stars get there and a cool off period where they stop or shrink dramatically their GM slots. For example in today's structure if someone qualified for 5 stars twice a double 5 star indicator would work better. 300 games and 20 specials (but no need of an approval) Still 5 stars but something indicating way more then 5 star qualification. Something like qualifier is 5 Silver stars, followed by a a triple qualifier of 5 gold stars, etc.

[Magabeus]

Gary Bush wrote:

I don't see how GMing SFS should have any effect on PFS1.0 or PFS2.0. It is a different campaign with different rules. I don't think any discounts need to applied to SFS Novas for PFS Stars.

PFS1 and PFS2 are also different campaigns with different rules. Together with SFS they share one setting at different points in time. I acknowledge that the period between both PFS campaigns is a lot shorter than the period between those and SFS.

John Compton wrote:

Basically, having a bunch of GM stars conveys that you're already an accomplished GM, so attaining a similar rank in the second edition would be easier

I read this as: GM Stars and Runes are a recognition of:

- basic GM skills that are independent of the specific (Paizo-) system
- other things

If the number of games to achieve a certain number of Runes is reduced because your Starts imply that you have sufficient basic GM skills for that level I wonder why this wouldn’t be the case for SFS where the GM also uses his basic GM skills.

@Gary: we have a thriving online community where we also run specials. If GMing online is something you want to do contact me through PM (and if you are already GMing online please forgive me)

[glass]

Gary Bush wrote:

Up until the the 5th level, I can see the math. The reduction in the number of tables to earn a Glyph/Sigil is calculated as (Stars earned - 1) X 10. But at the 5th level, it becomes (Stars earned X 10). If using the same formula as the other 4, it should be a discount of 40 less than normal.

Maybe it is the intent to allow 5 Star GMs an extra benefit. I don't have a problem with that. But I like consistency and I think the formula should be same for all levels.

I think you are misreading it (unless it is me): The whole of the example in the blog is for 5 star GMs (although I see what you mean, they do get an extra discount on their fifth sigil/glyph/rune). That said, I must admit, without a similar example I did not entirely follow what discount I would get as a three star GM (who knows, maybe four by then).

Anyway, while I would not throw my teddies out the pram if they went with option 1, I would prefer some recognition of my PFS1 stars in PFS2.

I rather liked the idea that someone posted in another thread that when you use a t-shirt reroll of equivalent in either PFS1 or PFS2, you add your number of stars or your number of glyphs/sigils/runes, whichever is higher. I could get behind that (which I guess would be option 3), or option 2.

Or maybe option 2 plus 3, but with smaller discounts than in the blog post (maybe fives instead of tens).

EDIT: I think I prefer "runes". If they were called glyphs, the obvious design would be the Glyph of the Open Road, except that that is too important to PFS already be used for something PFS2 specific.

_
glass.

[Upaynao]

I can live with anything proposed. I certainly like the direction the OP team is going in currently with a good dose of option 2 mixed with perhaps some option 3.

My personal quibble with starting over is the specials. Special qualifiers are difficult not just in running (which is fine) but also in scheduling (which is the crux of my issue).

Whether in PFS1 or in PFS2, a special has the same challenges IMO. Rules mastery is a component, but the ability to understand a special's tempo, its individual challenges to help those playing at the table make choices with an understanding of how those choices translate, and preparation are what is being tested in a Special.

I'm all for sigils, runes or wafer cookies representing some rules mastery but I think that would be missing some of the key abilities that make a GM a GM whose tables you seek out. And I also feel that those abilities are tested in a special no matter the rules system. So while perhaps a total discount on specials might be a non-starter, perhaps alleviating some of the special requirements that will doubtlessly crop up in the evaluation system put in place for PFS2.

[Marc Waschle]

I am half way to my second Star and over half way to my first Nova. I had no problem starting over for SFS, and I have no problem starting over for PFS2.

I would not have a problem starting over if I had 5 Stars either. I plan on continuing to GM PFS1 and should have my second Star and first Nova by or at GENCON this year. I will continue to GM PFS1 as long as people want to play it. I will continue to run SFS and I have already preordered the play test materials and will run that hopefully starting at GENCON this year!

I really don't understand the vitriol about Stars not carrying over into PFS2. They are not going away, they don't become worthless overnight in Aug 2019, you can still earn 5 Stars, run 1e Specials, ect, they are just starting something new to strive for! I can and do empathize however, especially after reading the post of people that are really tore up about it. I am impressed by the concern and responsiveness of the Paizo staff over the issue. It is yet again another thing I like about PFS, the way we can affect the game/policy that we play in and under. It truly is a living world.

I'm for a clean break/restart. JMHO. If they decide to give us some other benefit then great, if they don't you'll still see me at game days, lodge nights and Cons running whatever anyone has an interest to play.

[Intrepdmind]

New Tabletop RPG player here, and so my comments here may be largely perceived as irrelevant. In terms of stars/sigils etc. - could you just carry over a "legacy" of some sort and start earning stars/sigils/badges etc fresh with each system that comes out? May be a bit superficial but I'd certainly try to sign up for, say, a new Starfinder campaign (or Pathfinder 2E) with a GM who has extensive Pathfinder 1E experience (denoted via a Pathfinder legacy or Pathfinder 1E token or rating) than a GM who has no GM experience with anything whatsoever. The system for me would be irrelevant - the "time in the seat" factor would be something I'd be looking for in my GMs - folks who have more of those soft skills rather that 100% familiarity with the rules (though those too would be highly sought after I'd imagine). I'd like to think that more "crunchy" players would guide newer GMs in terms of steadfast rules adherence, but I also really like ascribing to the philosophy of rules coming second to the play experience. The "boon" here would be more like a prestige rating rather than a tangible "I get to use a potion or unlock a race" thing.

Like with many things in life, I'm not a GM so I couldn't possibly offer salient advice on this. But as a new player, I can certainly offer insights as to what I'm currently looking for in terms of a GM.

[Josh Klingerman]

Is there going to be a cutoff for GM's working towards their 5th Star in Pathfinder 1E? I know of more than a few people who are pretty close but might not make it by the time Pathfinder Society 2E launches, and it'd be nice to know that either the requirements would change or that some attention would still be given to the 1E GMs getting their Specials and 150 games in even after 2E goes full steam.

[Gary Bush]

Gerard van Konijnenburg wrote:

@Gary: we have a thriving online community where we also run specials. If GMing online is something you want to do contact me through PM (and if you are already GMing online please forgive me)

I would love to GM online but I just don't have the time. Thanks however!

[Gary Bush]

Josh Klingerman wrote:

Is there going to be a cutoff for GM's working towards their 5th Star in Pathfinder 1E? I know of more than a few people who are pretty close but might not make it by the time Pathfinder Society 2E launches, and it'd be nice to know that either the requirements would change or that some attention would still be given to the 1E GMs getting their Specials and 150 games in even after 2E goes full steam.

What is pretty close? 2 more specials or 10 more tables? That should be doable in the 18 months left before PF2.0 hits in August of 2019.

[Tash Thon]

In one of the other threads I saw a suggestion of using 7 Thassalonian runes instead of 5 arbitrary symbols. Personally, I think that is an excellent start of an idea.

So, my idea of the expanded GM runes:
Each threshold (I'm not very concerned what they are) allows an accomplished GM to earn another rune. Each rune provides a bonus relevant to the virtue/vice it represents.

If this is interesting enough and not to unwieldy to use, it might be worth delving more into the virtue and vice uses of each rune to widen the GMing boon options.

[TwilightKnight]

Intrepdmind wrote:

the "time in the seat" factor

The problem with using stars to access a GMs quality is that it does not take into account their experience outside of organize play. As many can attest, there are lots of GMs with zero stars that are as good if not better than some 5-star GMs. The only difference between them is the 5-star has run games in the society, while the other has not. We can make the assumption that a 5-star GM should be good at their craft since otherwise players probably wouldn't have kept coming back. Plus you should improve after 150+ tables. OTOH, we should not assume someone with zero (or one, etc) stars is an inexperienced GM. They may be fantastic. They are merely inexperienced GMing PFS.

[Sammy T]

New rules and new system? Fresh start. However, I have no problem with a subsidized system as outlined in Option 2.

[Terminalmancer]

I personally think the fresh start is the best approach, but I wouldn't mind a subsidy.

That said, what I'd rather see is the addition of another separate "ladder" to recognize total contribution to organized play. Base it on total tables run across all Paizo OP campaigns (stars, novas, glyphs, etc.) and have that be the first thing next to a player's name. It would give some recognition for the contributions made in older systems and would help clarify some of the conversation around what stars represent. I don't have any mechanical benefits in mind, but if we needed some, I don't think it would be hard to think of some small things to make it feel a little worthwhile. It would also give the team an opportunity to deemphasize stars/novas/etc. as older systems are slowly phased out and retired.

Hopefully that separation would also reduce the feeling held by some PFS players that starting over means their GMing contributions are being lost or forgotten about in the change to PFS2. You're always working to earn more "paizos" or "golems" or "shields" or whatever, even if you get to 4 stars in Starfinder Society and then Starfinder 2 is released.

[eddv]

Well given the new Crit system that +1 per star thing has the potential to be absurdly more powerful in 2e.

So I half expect that that won't be what the new glyphs do.

[Juniper Clark]

I'm inclined to vote for option 2 or option 3. GMs that have invested significant time into Pathfinder 1.0 have likely done a few things:
1. They've likely provided significant revenue for Paizo as they've encouraged people to purchase source material to play the game.
2. They've likely refined their capabilities as a GM through frequently running content. Being a 4 or 5-star GM isn't just about knowing the rules, it's about providing a positive experience to the players. Having more experienced GMs likely improves player retention.
3. They've likely helped new players convert into repeat players. PFS GMs provide an opportunity for new players to get a taste of TTRPGs. In many areas, home game players/GMs (non-public game play) are reluctant to allow new players into their games for fear of the player being disruptive. Organized play helps to mold better table-top players.

Final thoughts:
As a Venture Lieutenant in a region with a fledgling PFS/SFS program that has recently moved from fielding 2 tables a week to 4 tables a week (at a single gaming store), it's difficult to have enough GMs for all of the interested players. While there will always be people who selflessly volunteer their time, my recruitment of regular GMs will always be a function of what type of benefits GM'ing provides. The Regional Support Package has made a significant difference in recruitment. Providing some sort of pat on the back for 1.0E GMs (even if they start GM'ing tomorrow) would go a long way towards my efforts to ensure there are enough GMs for the number of interested players I have show up each week (since there would be.

[Woran]

I personally dont care if I have to start over fresh. My stars benefit will remain in PFS1.

I do however recognise that the way I feel is not how others feel on this subject. Of the options proposed, I think Option 2—Subsidized Metric is closest to what I would like.

[pjrogers]

I'll jump on what appears to be a big of a band wagon and put my support (such as it is) behind Option 2, which recognizes that Stars, etc. are about both rules knowledge and general GMing experience which is above and beyond knowledge of the rules. Someone could have an encyclopedic knowledge of the rules and still be a terrible GM.

[Ascalaphus]

The one thing GM stars show for certain is that you put a lot of work into GMing PFS. You're a part of why the community is able to flourish: because people GM. While the game system is changing, we're hoping that the community will stay. So I think it's reasonable that stars both change and continue.

So the subsidized metric seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

[Damian West]

I'm for option 2. I feel is a good compromise, which provides a nod of dedication to PF1 and shouldn't be unfair to new players/GMs. Established players feel like that weren't ignored, but still have to put in the time and all into GMing to get the results out of it. Thus, encouraging more GMing in the new edition. New GMs just have to put in a handful more games and can still get the same runes/glyph.

(Though I am a sucker for titles like in option 3, but that's just a personal thing.)

[Blind Prophet]

here's a little copy and paste from my reply to the blog post, since it feels like here's the official spot to voice the opinion.

Option 2 Doesn't sound horrible. It also doesn't sound too...well, for lack of a proper term, Overpowered. Let's be realistic, it's going to take some time for GM's to get up off the ground and get back in the saddle. I don't envision me hitting 4 or 5 glyphs that quickly, and maybe a little boost would be helpful in reaching that end road. Probably not even within the first year, to be honest. If option 2 seems to hard to implement (let's be frank, Paizo.com doesn't have the best track records with coding, especially when it comes to PFS), then option 3 would be my second choice.

Overly Judgemental Gnome said wrote:

However... ultimately I want what is good for the campaign. Although the thought of starting over made me horribly upset, I’ve calmed down some. If you think it’s best for the longterm health of the campaign to make a clean start, then that’s what I’ll choose.

I can see Hilary's gnome jumping up on a table and making a rowdy, ruckus of a room go quiet with her stare alone as she says this. How's this. I will voluntarily go with option 1 if and only if one of the in text venture captains gives mission briefings by guilting adventuring party's into going on missions by giving them a look. :D

[Hmm]

Overly judgemental gnome?! Pffft.

[Greymist]

Stars directly show the commitment that individuals have made in making PFS games available for others. It makes sense to me to recognize this by making it easier for them to return to the same level in the new campaign, i.e., Option 2. This does appear to leave one star GMs with no notice or reward, so it seems appropriate to also include some token that applies to GMs with any number of stars, such as one free fancy Wayfinder.

[Batpony]

Option 3 fan here, I like the idea of a thank you for your contributions.

Not a fan of a subsidised star system as historical knowledge shouldn't really translate automatically to the new system.

[The Masked Ferret]

Tim Perreau wrote:

Option 3 fan here, I like the idea of a thank you for your contributions.

Not a fan of a subsidised star system as historical knowledge shouldn't really translate automatically to the new system.

I agree.

[Blind Prophet]

Hilary Moon Murphy wrote:

Overly judgemental gnome?! Pffft.

I only say this with the most respect, Hilary. :D Just as much as my avatar looks like Morgan Freeman enjoying the heck out of some pirate cosplay, yours looks like a gnomish venture captain that just sits there, staring at the adventuring party when they ask her a question during the mission briefing that's really...out there.

"So you're wanting to ask me if there is going to be trees in the forest of ultimate doom? Hmm."

Seriously though, it took me forever to piece together that your signature is your initials.