|
There have been concerns raised about 'having too many mouths to feed' with the 'cantina feel' approach to GM Convention/RSP boons.
Would it be possible to produce a Boon that instead of offering that (either on the same sheet as the race boon, or as a separate Boon?) offer a 'level-up' instead?
There'd be the benefit of not having to re-play a lot of 'repeatables' to mitigate 'running out of content' while helping GMs by compensating for the time they GM.
Please help me refine this idea, I think it has merit?
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While I do like convention race boons, I do think it would be great to have a choice of Race or something else rather than just 2 races.
There is a chronicle boon out there that lets you substitute the Icon background 6th-level benefit for the benefit you would normally get for your background at 6th-level. Essentially sort of letting you 'multi-background.' I think offering these as one of the 2 choices rather than the choice of 2 races would be a good thing.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Unless/until the race unlock boons are directly tied to the seasonal or scenario content (which would be better IMHO) there’s really no reason not to simply go to a points-based system whereas a GM earns boon points for each table they run at a qualifying event. The there is a menu of restricted content, be it races, archetypes, themes, equipment, etc that have varying value that the GM can spend their boon points on. This would continue to provide incentive value to GMing at special events like Gen Con, Origins, regional/local conventions and charity events while also giving the GMs more control over the boons they earn matching the ones they want the most.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
Unless/until the race unlock boons are directly tied to the seasonal or scenario content (which would be better IMHO) there’s really no reason not to simply go to a points-based system whereas a GM earns boon points for each table they run at a qualifying event. The there is a menu of restricted content, be it races, archetypes, themes, equipment, etc that have varying value that the GM can spend their boon points on. This would continue to provide incentive value to GMing at special events like Gen Con, Origins, regional/local conventions and charity events while also giving the GMs more control over the boons they earn matching the ones they want the most.
While I like the idea, it is pointless until Paizo themselves gets better at reporting events. GenCon, in particular, has a bad legacy of taking forever to complete reporting and I still have 1-2 events from each year I have GMed at GenCon that have never been reported. When all I had riding on the line was delays in getting my GM Stars, that was fine. But when my reward boons are tied to it, that is another thing entirely.
|
|
Based on my review last night, I guarantee that Gen Con 2018 will be completely reported (at least all we are aware of) by the end of this month with the exception of the Playtest demo tables which require a new content to be added to the database that could take longer. Since those credits are virtually meaningless until the launch of PFS2, I’m not concerned about the delay in that specific reporting.
|
The idea of a level-up boon in Starfinder seems a bit silly to me. There isn't a reasonable way to mitigate running out of content. I support the race boon reward for GMing. It is the most equitable reward for GMing. GMs don't need any more significant of a reward.
Plus, if you haven't made a Khizar yet you should. It is like playing hard mode.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There'd be the benefit of not having to re-play a lot of 'repeatables' to mitigate 'running out of content' while helping GMs by compensating for the time they GM.
That will not mitigate running out of content, that will make it worse as characters out-pace content release.
I don't mind having a folder full of race boons that I might not use (although my excess is due to scenario awarded races). I might use them, especially if something gave me an idea, and that's enough reward for me.
If you have too many convention race boons and not enough player boons, trade them to players who don't have race boons for those player boons you want. You're not forced to hold onto your GM race boons for a "better" or "more desirable" race boon.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main issue here is having a reward other than just races. The more race boons you have, the less individual value they hold. So it would be nice to have either a choice of race or a choice of something else instead. Even the really unique race boons you can get for GMing PFS at GenCon usually come with an option other than the race boon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main issue here is having a reward other than just races. The more race boons you have, the less individual value they hold.
They become currency that you trade for players for more variety.
If you get your 3rd formian and a player who wants a formian has Mystic Targeting System Upgrade, trade with them. *Boom* You just got something different for GMing.
|
|
The same amount we already do to trade races we earn from GMing (or less because you're at tables with players presumably winning them in from if you).
EDIT: The system and practice of trading boons already exists. The problem some may inject into the idea is that for a long time, GM race boons were held at a premium so that even now, even with a few people lamenting that GM race boons in SFS seem devalued they still hold to the traditional value in trades and can't release their GM boon for a player boon because 'it doesn't feel exclusive.' Now, I personally have recieved a GM boon for a player boon, so people do do it.
EDIT CONT'D: Now it could be even more simply implemented by allowing a policy for GMs to trade their race boon for any available player convention boon with the convention's PFS/SFS coordinator.
|
|
Bob's idea, as unsettling as it is to me for some reason I can't *quite* put a finger on yet, seems like the 'best' of alternate ideas?
It’s similar in concept to our change in prize support from physical product to grift certificates. The downside is the recipient loses the immediate gratification of getting the actual item, but gains the greater power to have control over what they actually win/earn. Think of it like getting a gift card for your birthday instead of an actual gift which may or may not be something you want or need.
Course, going to a points-based boon system would require some digital improvements to the website to facilitate a tracking and spending system for the points. The boons could be loaded into the database with their “cost” being boon points instead of dollars. When purchased, the watermarking system would need to notate the document such that it could only be used once and not pirated.
I could see this as the next step in transforming OP into a digital program with a future step being the inftroduction of digital chronicle reporting and tracking.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind a points system if I had confidence that it would be accurate, reliable, and enduring.
Accurate: When I GM a convention, my points show up.
Reliable: I do not lose my accrued points due to a power surge or lose access to recording/spending my points due to website downtime.
Enduring: The system is not scrapped a couple years into it, leaving me with unspendable credits.
|
|
I think the main issue here is having a reward other than just races. The more race boons you have, the less individual value they hold. So it would be nice to have either a choice of race or a choice of something else instead. Even the really unique race boons you can get for GMing PFS at GenCon usually come with an option other than the race boon.
I think that is where my point is focused. And I repeat, GMs don't need any more significant of a reward.
So I GM'ed a game or twenty? La-tee-da!
I didn't just cure cancer or anything. I don't need to be showered with fantastical rewards. Heck, that I get a reward at all is debatably a bit much. Which reminds me of a moral, something about a "gift horse in the mouth"?
GMing is volunteering. Part of the concept of volunteering is not receiving anything in return.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMing is volunteering. Part of the concept of volunteering is not receiving anything in return.
That depends on how you look at it. Almost every volunteer I have met in various volunteer circles usually expects at least some from of appreciation for volunteering. While that appreciation can come in many forms, many of which may be intangible, to me, boons are one of the ways Paizo shows their appreciation. I don't view it as payment or entitlement, but if Paizo were to suddenly yank their rewards programs like Wizards did with LFR, you would see the same results I did then, i.e. a lot of GMs going, "Well, I guess Paizo doesn't appreciate what I am doing for them anymore. So why am I doing all this work for a company that doesn't seem to care whether I do or don't?"
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
I wouldn't mind a points system if I had confidence that it would be accurate, reliable, and enduring.
Accurate: When I GM a convention, my points show up.
Reliable: I do not lose my accrued points due to a power surge or lose access to recording/spending my points due to website downtime.
Enduring: The system is not scrapped a couple years into it, leaving me with unspendable credits.
Another issue/benefit is an increased desire to improve reporting. In my own experience I would guess at least 20% of my convention GMing, including major conventions, was either reported incorrectly (usually wrong mod) or not reported at all. I got my boons at the Con so it wasn't worth tracking down the organizers to get them to fix things, but now I would have to do that. Or course, the upside of requiring more pressure on organizers to report faster and more accurately is that you get faster and more accurate reporting.
Reliability is definite problem, though. Paizo just had a serious reliability problem with their website recently, and they are hardly the only gaming company to suffer such problems when they move more things to an online basis.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or course, the upside of requiring more pressure on organizers to report faster and more accurately is that you get faster and more accurate reporting.
The downside being that you are pressuring a volunteer for accurately doing the boring tedious paperwork part of the hobby which may lead to more "*(#&#$ this someone else can run"
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I GM'ed a game or twenty? La-tee-da!
I didn't just cure cancer or anything. I don't need to be showered with fantastical rewards. Heck, that I get a reward at all is debatably a bit much. Which reminds me of a moral, something about a "gift horse in the mouth"?GMing is volunteering. Part of the concept of volunteering is not receiving anything in return.
I mean ideally people wouldn't need anything in return for 'volunteering' I put volunteering in scare quotes because GMing for PFS is only volunteering in the loosest sense when you're talking about doing so in a convention setting (especially larger conventions).
GMing for organized play is not a charitable endeavor. Sure you are providing the ability for others to play games, but in many cases they paid money to do so (especially at conventions.) Beyond that, legal fiction aside, Paizo organized play is a marketing tool for Paizo, people playing PFS/SFS helps get brand exposure and it helps move product, 'volunteers' are necessary for this process to function because Paizo doesn't have the staff or the resources to make it work out for them at a reasonable cost otherwise.
Because of this arrangement, people recognize what they really are, cogs in a system where they are only a volunteer in the sense that they aren't getting a paycheck for what they do. That doesn't mean that people should be expected to be part of Paizo's marketing efforts out of the kindness of their hearts.
Some people will view the compensation they receive as adequate for them to continue to be cogs in this system and others will not. I personally think its well worth it to volunteer at conventions because I value the boon (and/or other rewards) that I receive as worth the commitment of time to do something that I largely enjoy. Others have different calculations but it is certainly a decision everyone makes on their own and its definitely something where compensation factors in to people's decisions to volunteer in a lot of cases.
Put simply, how many people do you think Paizo would get to GM at Gen Con if there was no reward for doing so? Maybe a few, but it certainly wouldn't be as many as they need to provide the experience desired for the number of players who want to play.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
The downside being that you are pressuring a volunteer for accurately doing the boring tedious paperwork part of the hobby which may lead to more "*(#&#$ this someone else can run"Or course, the upside of requiring more pressure on organizers to report faster and more accurately is that you get faster and more accurate reporting.
Exactly.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMing is volunteering. Part of the concept of volunteering is not receiving anything in return.
That horse has left the barn. I would agree with you if we hadn’t already started a rewards program, but since we did, you cannot take it away without some people feeling like they are being punished. Wether you call it elitism or selfishness or whatever, we started rewarding people for GMing. Now it’s a thing. We cannot restrict or eliminate it without hurting local events. I’m the first to agree that it sucks, but it is what it is now. I wish more people were just altruistic too. If you want to maximize your volunteer pool, you need to provide rewards. It really is that simple.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That horse has left the barn. I would agree with you if we hadn’t already started a rewards program, but since we did, you cannot take it away without some people feeling like they are being punished. Wether you call it elitism or selfishness or whatever, we started rewarding people for GMing. Now it’s a thing. We cannot restrict or eliminate it without hurting local events. I’m the first to agree that it sucks, but it is what it is now. I wish more people were just altruistic too. If you want to maximize your volunteer pool, you need to provide rewards. It really is that simple.
I think it goes beyond this, there's a fundamental question to be answered. What is the point of playing or running PFS/SFS at a convention?
I can play every single scenario that isn't a special at my FLGS or online whenever I can gather 2 other people and a GM (or run it if I can find 3 people to play it.) What benefit is there to do this at a convention if there isn't some chance at a unique reward for doing so?
I think that's this is a fundamental problem with Paizo organized play. There isn't enough reason to go to conventions to play (outside of a select few very large ones which make boons far easier to obtain.) But we want to promote conventions. Conventions are where a lot of recruitment happens, and that's hard to do if it looks like the program isn't vibrant (i.e. we need existing players to attend them.)
The boons do help, but I think maybe the whole structure of what conventions can offer with regard to PFS/SFS play may need to be reevaluated.
|
|
Online play is only a valid option for those who can or want to play online. Personally, I dislike online play because it lessens the interpersonal interaction which is why I play games in the first place. There are a lot of people who simply do not enjoy online play, not to mention those who do not have the facility (computer, internet access, etc) to do so.
Also, local GameDay play is dependent on the size of your local community. Perhaps you cannot get a regular game or maybe you want to play more often than the local group can support. Its not always as easy for some to simply grab a few people, draft a GM and play.
At the end of the day, from a Paizo perspective, it doesn't matter if you are playing online or in person as long as you are playing. The assumption is that if you play regularly, then you will buy materials for your game. There is no reason for them to want to incentify one play style over another since that could inherently alienate those who prefer one format over the other and are missing out on those rewards. Its why the RSP program was created to address the imbalance of rewards for those who cannot attend physical conventions where all the boons were being issued.
The reasons to attend a convention are already there: boons (of course), but moreso the company of other gamers, more variety in play options, concentration of play, variety of game system options (MtG, Cataan, etc), access to vendors, vacation time away from home, charity participation, cost vs alternatives (movie tickets), etc.
We certainly do not have a fundamental problem with rewards. Simply put, we already provide enough incentive for someone to attend our events. There is no reason to expand that from an official top-down perspective. Some local areas might have to look at what they do and make adjustments based on the needs of their community, but the rewards Paizo already provides are more than adequate. YMMV
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The benefit of many conventions is bringing in new players. When OrgPlay appears at non-gaming conventions that are local, I notice us getting an immediate influx of new players (and new GMs!) from those events.
When I look around at our local GMs at Dreamers, a whole bunch of them came out of the same general SF convention. They tried OrgPlay there, and liked it.
Heck, that was how *I* discovered Organized Play. I wasn't looking to join Organized Play. I wasn't looking for a gaming group. But I was disatissfied with my home game, and had so much fun with Organized Play that I kept coming back.
I think that's a large part of why I GM at conventions. I like GMing for new people, especially families with kids. I like seeing people's faces light up! I'll admit that I am a volunteer with a great big altruistic "V" printed on my forehead, but I also like the perks of the race boons. They make a nice 'thank you' and they also motivate me.
In my case, I think it's part altruism, part "ooh, what did I get?"
Hmm
|
|
We certainly do not have a fundamental problem with rewards. Simply put, we already provide enough incentive for someone to attend our events. There is no reason to expand that from an official top-down perspective. Some local areas might have to look at what they do and make adjustments based on the needs of their community, but the rewards Paizo already provides are more than adequate. YMMV
Maybe, maybe not. I hear from a lot of people that they don't attend local conventions to play because the incentive isn't there versus their local game days and its certainly my experience. At conventions that aren't Gen Con you have, usually, a 10% chance per game of getting a boon.
Beyond that, I'm not even talking about boons specifically. I've been involved in a few different organized play campaigns that made the convention experience unique in different ways as an incentive to get people to attend local conventions. I've seen very little of that with Paizo organized play. Do they have to do something? Of course not, but I definitely think they could.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t feel I/we need to go to great lengths to incentify people to play a game. That just reeks of entitlement. It’s a game. It’s fun. Presumably the people you play it with are fun. Going to a convention has a level of ambiance that adds to the excitement of playing the game. There is inherent value to being with hundreds or thousands of other people who share your interest and having grand adventures even if they only exist in our minds. Call me out of touch or an old crotchety grognard, whatever but if I invited someone to a local convention and after I shared everything I’ve said above they said something to the effect of “what’s in in for me,” I’d rather they just stay home.
|
|
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t feel I/we need to go to great lengths to incentify people to play a game. That just reeks of entitlement. It’s a game. It’s fun. Presumably the people you play it with are fun. Going to a convention has a level of ambiance that adds to the excitement of playing the game. There is inherent value to being with hundreds or thousands of other people who share your interest and having grand adventures even if they only exist in our minds.
Entitlement? I'm not really sure what that is supposed to mean. Beyond that, Paizo wants to incentivize people to play a game, its how they grow the game. Should Wizards of the Coast or Fantasy Flight not offer prize support for their organized play programs, afterall, why do you need to incentivize people to play a game, clearly they should just want to play it.
Additionally, there's a reason for supporting convention play from Paizo's perspective. Why do you think that is? It certainly isn't because they think that conventions add to the excitement of playing the game. Paizo doesn't run demos and introductory scenarios at conventions because they think its more exciting. No, conventions are how you recruit new players. The best way to recruit and retain new players is to show them how much fun the game can be, one of the best ways to do this is by showcasing unique things that only conventions can offer. One of those things is specials, but there's so much more Paizo could and can do.
Its not entitlement, its a recognition about how much opportunity there is to improve the convention experience.
Call me out of touch or an old crotchety grognard, whatever but if I invited someone to a local convention and after I shared everything I’ve said above they said something to the effect of “what’s in in for me,” I’d rather they just stay home.
Its actually the exact opposite, the crotchery grognard in me longs for the days when organized play at conventions felt special, it certainly felt special in Living City when I did an early form of Cosplaying with hundreds of people in a hotel ballroom with unique special missions and storylines. It certainly felt special when I played the premier of an event that influenced the plot line and perhaps had unique rewards. It felt special when I was playing Living Greyhawk and I would go to a different part of the country and play things that I couldn't play anywhere else. And despite my dislike for 5th edition, what WotC is doing with their organized play to make conventions feel special, including convention created content premiers, magic item trading posts, and author only scenarios definitely seems to make the convention experience seem more special on that side of the current gaming community.
Paizo OP feels watered down compared to the convention experiences of the past. But it doesn't have to be so.
Maybe those are just relics of the past, maybe organized play has become too homogenized. Maybe it is an entitlement thing (namely, that people feel entitled to access to every reward possible regardless of location.) But I've seen those things work before with as many people as every convention that isn't Gen Con gets and it makes me sad to see the state of convention play now when I know how much more special it could be, and has been, in the past.
|
|
As one of the altruist volunteers I can say these next things with the utmost confidence.
As a experiential fact for me, selfish volunteers are statistically straight up less useful than altruistic ones. They are less valuable. They are willing to do less that needs to be done. According to those things, they are lesser volunteers. Are they still useful? Sure, but I wouldn't use them if I didn't have to.
Some may be offended by these statements, that's nice. I am not pointing this out to offend. I am not pointing this out to shame (there is a fine amount of validity in selfishness, no judgements here). I am pointing this out so that ya'll who are selfish volunteers know where you stand when it comes to organizers. Organizationally most you are a necessary burden.
And, in line with what I have said previously in this post and thread, I think it is selfish to propose getting more reward for doing a volunteer job.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As one of the altruist volunteers I can say these next things with the utmost confidence.
As a experiential fact for me, selfish volunteers are statistically straight up less useful than altruistic ones. They are less valuable. They are willing to do less that needs to be done. According to those things, they are lesser volunteers. Are they still useful? Sure, but I wouldn't use them if I didn't have to.
Some may be offended by these statements, that's nice. I am not pointing this out to offend. I am not pointing this out to shame (there is a fine amount of validity in selfishness, no judgements here). I am pointing this out so that ya'll who are selfish volunteers know where you stand when it comes to organizers. Organizationally most you are a necessary burden.
And, in line with what I have said previously in this post and thread, I think it is selfish to propose getting more reward for doing a volunteer job.
Wow. From misapplying the term 'entitlement' by one GenCon lead to this statement. This thread took a wrong turn somewhere and is going deeper in a harmful direction.
You can't say you're not being judgemental or not offending when you call people 'straight up less useful', 'less valuable', 'lesser volunteers', and a 'burden' as well as making statements such as 'I wouldn't use them if I didn't have to' and 'so that ya'll . . . know where you stand when it comes to the organizers.'
I don't feel that GMs need more incentives, either, but none of that needed to be said.
It makes me, a selfish volunteer who--now with my second child--only gets to play face-to-face at all at conventions so probably wouldn't GM more than one session at GenCon if there wasn't something (and money doesn't incentivize me, personally) to push the cost-benefit ratio toward GMing, not want to volunteer for GenCon or PaizoCon if that is the official stance of the organizers.
...even though being a selfish volunteer, I still try to do my best at every table even on the last slot at GenCon.
|
|
I think it’s generally an error to try and compare major national events like Gen Con, Origins, PaizoCon, etc to local/regional events. The former are special events with an expectation of very long distance travel, and usually the participation of most/all publishers and producers of games internationally. Gaming companies spend enormous amounts of money at these shows where their games are featured. The expectations will be different. The rewards will be different. The experience will be different.
Local/regional conventions are typically much more like large GameDays. Participation is much more local with less travel, fewer game companies represented, etc. Sure, the experience can be just as fulfilling, but it’s different. Expectations are different and as a result rewards are different. The investment is much smaller and gaming companies rarely if ever even attend let alone spend their own money on the volunteers. As such, you are not going to see the same types of rewards that you will at premier events.
This is an important consideration when talking about reward programs.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Game days, big cons, or small cons. In person or online the idea is the same. The limiting reagent for how many games we can have is almost always the dm.
More DMs mean more games. which is obvious. if you have 4 dms and 40 players some people need to wait in the lobby
More DMs mean smaller tables, which helps to make for better games.
More Dms mean more choice of games. I can run two tables at once but they'd need to be the same scenario. With more DMs you can run both death by pie and Pumpkin pie 2: death by math so people that have played the first one can play the sequel and people that haven't can hop into the story. This is especially important in a small lodge to have a high and low table.
The same DM running more leads to both of these: the drive for five in general or running 6 games instead of 3 at an event
More people stepping up to DM just a little means the same dms get a chance to play every once in a while, as well as not being dead tired running game 6, as well as only needing to shove 3 scenarios into your head instead of 4 or 5 different ones. Or not having to run every. single week. It helps burn out in the short and long terms.
So incentivizing that is good for everyone.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Rhein Main South
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bob at least here in Europe some conventions you would call "small" are also the only cons in the nation where specials CAN be offered. So even "small" events lead to long distance travel if you look outside of the US. For our big convention we have regulary players from multiple countries as this is one of the very few events that can offer specials in continental Europe.
And the Gencon boons are causing a bad divide between the communities because if you happen to live on one of the other 6 continents your chance of getting one without going to spend a 4-Digit ammount is miniscule.
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
Bahb can correct me if I am wrong but I believe it is valid to trade your GM boon for one of that cons player boon. Is that correct?
If so, if we can just have that stated somewhere I can easily point at if a con organizer is iffy on the idea that would largely solve my race-fatigue issue.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no official rule I am aware of that specifies trading your GM for a player boon instead. That being said, there’s nothing really against it and since most agree the GM boons have a greater value, most organizers would probably allow it. IIRC I may have done so myself from time to time.
Not to be confused with someone earning a player boon and trading it for a GM boon instead. That typically should not be done since there is an expectation that the GM boon is earned by actually GMing and giving it out otherwise would devalue the incentive which is the point of the boon.