|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What am I missing here?
Abuse of the system.
GM duty won't be passed around equitably. The guy who wants to use the system to build up multiple PCs fast or farm multiple copies of a particular boon will be quick on the trigger signing up on Warhorn or whatever system or will run 10 tables of the same scenario simultaneously on PbP draining the player pool so nobody else can GM the scenario.
Unintended consequences.
Certain boons, usually the desirable ones (see PFS(2) quest #2), are created under the assumption no player gets more than two chances at it. Increase the plays and the boons will get diluted in utility.
Just off the top of my head.
If a fix can be exploited, it's not the right fix.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am from an area that has multiple sites and enough players between them that the prospect of running a Scenario more than once is, actually, typical.
So you're in a situation where one gm effectively runs several lodges at once? Your problem isn't that the gm cant get several sheets, it's that you dont have enough gms to share the workload - theres no real reason why a second gm could not be the guy who runs the scenario in the second site instead of the first gm. You need incentives for new gm's to step up, not for the existing gm to gm more."locking up" the scenario from other gms by having one gm run it thrice discourages new gms as theyd need to run something completely new, instead of an adventure they have already played once.
To take it a step further, in a situation where, at maximum, a single person could at best get two Chronicle Sheets (with potentially unique desirable Boons), I see no real reason to arbitrarily restrict the number or type of DM play-throughs, because, it would seem to me this is the behavior the incentive system would seek to reward the most!
in the suggested system you'd end up in a situation where one person can end up with multiple copies and others get just one.
That said, I'm still unconvinced that placing arbitrary restrictions on DMing is a good thing for growing out the number of DMs. Especially comments such as this:
Because it basically robs other people of the chance to GM that scenario, because the first GM is "eating up" all the potential players for it.Like, wouldn't you be happy to participate in a Society where the GM duty rotated more equitably?!?
Yes. I would be happy to participate in a society where the gm duty rotated more equitably. Which is why I dont support a suggestion where one gm is encouraged to run more of the same, instead of letting/encouraging others to run the next instance of said quest. Besides, then the gm gets a chance to play it too!
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
That said, I'm still unconvinced that placing arbitrary restrictions on DMing is a good thing for growing out the number of DMs. Especially comments such as this:
Because it basically robs other people of the chance to GM that scenario, because the first GM is "eating up" all the potential players for it.Like, wouldn't you be happy to participate in a Society where the GM duty rotated more equitably?!?
What am I missing here?
Cheers.
GM "duty" in my area already rotates equitably.
First off, we don't call it a duty. Quite a lot of us enjoy GMing. For a lot of us, if we've just played a scenario that we liked, we want to share that with other people by GMing it.
If your idea was used however, and one GM ran a scenario over and over for credit, then they wouldn't get that opportunity.
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thoroughly enjoy DMing too! I also recognize it as a "duty" because you have to do twice (or more) as much work as everyone else. These two things are not mutually exclusive, and most of the time, the latter dynamic does not detract from the former experience. Most of the time. But it does happen.
...
I realize that most of the posters here feel very passionately about their POV, and that, as a virtual outsider, it's easy for me to pop in here and present an opinion that feels like a criticism. Because, really, I am trying to be critical of the system. I see it in the exhaling sigh when a community Organizer has to set aside their desire to Play in order to Run instead because nobody stepped up. That to me seems totally off.
I do believe that, with a few outliers (mentioned above and on the first page), overall the incentive system for Playing and DMing are unbalanced. The result being that people end up self-identifying more as "Players", a smaller minority as "DMs", and an even smaller minority as "Both". Perhaps a straw pull (or warhorn analysis) in your community will bear out similar numbers.
And simply, I can imagine a Society play model where this distinction is less stark, where the majority of folks identify as "Both", followed by a smaller proportion of the other groups. And I think that this, overall, would constitute healthier gaming communities.
And towards that end, believe that tweaking the system of incentives towards lifting the arbitrary restrictions against DMing, despite a looming but perhaps irrational fear that in doing so the game will become exploited somehow, is not backwards to me. Like, in what world are we worried about people willing to DM too much!?
And sure, perhaps continued experience will cause me to reverse my opinion. I am open to that. It's just a hard pill to swallow that making DMing harder is somehow better for the community, even if that community has already normalized it to some extent.
I do appreciate the continued rational discussion.
Happy Holidays!
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I first got into GMing PFS I wanted to earn the boons and the replays. At first it was nice, but as I ran more and more sessions, I soon ended up with more boons and chronicle sheets than I could use.
I have ran just over 200 sessions in the last two years. I quit putting a character number on the scenarios because I had no interest in building GM blobs for the hell of it. All of my characters are built to fit a personality. So what am I going to do with all those sheets and boons?
Replays have no real meaning for me since I meet the 5-Star replays. I started playing Core which is as good as a replay in my opinion.
GMing is not something I do for the rewards. I do it for the enjoyment of GMing and having fun with the other players at the tables. I get to play multiple roles and personalities, use nutty accents, put players on the edge of their seats, and share in the euphoria of a successful mission.
I'm pretty good with the way things are.
|
|
overall the incentive system for Playing and DMing are unbalanced. The result being that people end up self-identifying more as "Players", a smaller minority as "DMs", and an even smaller minority as "Both". Perhaps a straw pull (or warhorn analysis) in your community will bear out similar numbers.
It's supposed to be unbalanced. You need more players than GMs.
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
Why are we using a 1st edition mindset to try and solve 2nd edition problems?What fundamental differences exist between GMing the different editions that you believe require fundamental changes to address?
In a nutshell, 1st edition was incredibly hard to break into. 2nd edition is, by comparison, much easier to crack. Doubly so for Society play. Triply so for DMing.
So to me, the difference is access.
As such, and especially now, during this transition, I think it's a good time to put back on our "newbie" hats and reevaluate. At least for me, when I compare the editions, I like to imagine the "why" behind the changes. For example, I see that 2nd edition is intentionally designed to give the DM greater narrative control of the game in the forms of new DM tools. This communicates to me that there is an emphasis on making DMing more accessible. Thus, I think that 2nd edition Society play should take the cue and follow suit.
Maybe not the answer you want, but that's what I think!
Cheers.
|
Venture-Captain, Washington—Seattle
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
tweaking the system of incentives towards lifting the arbitrary restrictions against DMing
There are no restrictions. There is perhaps a lack of incentive to repeatedly run the same scenario, but if you really want to, you can do it - nothing prevents you. I have run nowhere near the number of scenarios most of the people on this thread have, but I have certainly re-run a scenario for no credit and have no qualms about doing so if asked.
In fact, I'm new enough to this gig that I can remember exactly what my thought process was after running my first scenario: "What should I run next that people can play?" Similar to many of the posters above have said, in my neck of the woods, what scenario our players can play is the limiting factor in what gets run.
I game in the same local area as RealAlchemy, with a core player base of perhaps 50+ people in PFS1/PFS2/SFS combined, with a significant overlap between the systems. The proportion of people who identify as 'both GM and player' is probably well over 30%. None are GMs who never play. Looking at PFS2 only, the player base is growing, and so is the GM base. Thinking specifically about the 'new' people that have appeared out of the woodwork due to PFS2, perhaps returning to the tabletop scene after a long hiatus or coming from other systems, I observe that roughly a third of them appear to openly enjoy GMing PF2. I include myself in that number. Obviously, this is a different situation from the one you're experiencing.
Like, in what world are we worried about people willing to DM too much!?
Well, I play in an SFS group that regularly fills 2 tables, where the proportion of people who identify as 'both player and GM' is even higher than in the larger local area - well over 50% here. I don't GM in that group, because it would further deprive people of the already limited opportunities to run, which are highly valued. I know this might seem outlandish if you're in a GM-starved area, but situations can vary a lot.
TL;DR: The issue you are experiencing is by no means global and so perhaps should not be attacked straight off with the blunt weapon of global changes to incentives, whatever the specific proposal for change may be. Rather, I would ask: What is the difference between places where GMs are lacking and places where they are not? Have you asked the people around you why they don't want to GM? Have likely prospects actually been invited to try it? Are people being encouraged and supported if they do step up?
|
In a nutshell, 1st edition was incredibly hard to break into. 2nd edition is, by comparison, much easier to crack. Doubly so for Society play. Triply so for DMing.Why are we using a 1st edition mindset to try and solve 2nd edition problems?What fundamental differences exist between GMing the different editions that you believe require fundamental changes to address?
Where are these numbers coming from?
PFS1 had a precursor; season 0 of PFS used D&D rules. 26 scenarios were released. Then between Season 0 and Season 1, the rules and Campaign transitioned to Pathfinder. At the time, Pathfinder was considered to be "D&D 3.75" since it was more of a natural evolution of the game compared to D&D 4E.
PFS2, by comparison, has no precursor as far as the rules go. Action economy changed, Traits were added, Secret Checks are required, and you have to transition between different Modes of play. It is very much *harder* to GM PFS2. I can speak to this myself, wanting to solely play for the first couple years before I learn the system well enough to GM it.
Maybe not the answer you want, but that's what I think!
Since we've been respectful in indulging your topic of conversation, could you pay us the same courtesy?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Could the same goal be accomplished by simply encouraging new GMs to run the repeatable scenarios? I know much of my road to my first star was We B4 Goblins and the Wounded Wisp run multiple times each. You get a chronicle each time you GM a repeatable scenario, and many players are looking to play repeatable content on as many PCs as possible, so they get scheduled often.
this, i think got overlooked so showing it again. Kate mentions that there are several repeatable solutions for you already. I suggest giving them all a try and than see where you are at.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
PFS2 is not harder to run than PFS1. It is just different. I've got new GMs starting to run at two lodges and they are having no more difficulty running PFS2 than new GMs learning to run PFS1.
As someone with over 30 sessions of PFS2 ran, I think it's really just a matter of not assuming what is valid in PFS1 is valid in PFS2. My biggest mistakes have been when I make assumptions based on PFS1 rules. I ran 8 tables of PFS2 at Gen Con and while it was sometimes frustrating at the first day's tables, once I gave up trying to force PFS1 rules into the system I was feeling a lot more comfortable by the end of the second day. By the third day I was much more confident with the system.
There are major differences between the two rule sets, but by and large I'm finding running PFS2 to be about the same as running PFS1. The secret checks are something that a GM will have to work out as to how they want to approach them. I am finding them to be pretty fun to use, but it also depends on the players. Some love the interaction that results from them, while more combat oriented players as well as methodical players aren't interested in the interaction that results from the first sets of secret checks. Honestly, the checks are nice because they shift the session away from players relying solely on die rolls and move them to relying on information gained via rolls they do not see.
Of course, each GM will have their own perspective on GMing PFS2, and that's fine. Everyone's perspective is valid on this subject.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regardless, that fact doesn't really make GMing either edition "fundamentally" different. My question earlier was, "What fundamental differences exist between GMing the different editions that require fundamental changes to address?"
I don't believe there are any. You still sit down to GM a pre-written adventure for a group of people in a scheduled time slot, fill out paperwork, report everything online, and everyone abides by the same social contract.
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
Hmm.
Ok by "harder" I think I mean "more stressful"?
But really "more accessible" I think is what the main difference is. I would argue that 2nd is more accessible than 1st. Looking from the outside, PFS 1st edition was intimidating to break into, for many reasons. Maybe even a bit insular as a result. There were so many things you had to "know" or "do" to break in, that unless you were already organized into it, it was not something that, in my experience, a person could just walk into casually and try out. That was my experience anyway. Again, outside looking in.
2nd edition changed that for me, and I think new people sense that too.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
My comment above was in reply to the statement that 1st Edition was harder.
It was not, since the Pathfinder rules system had a precursor that was easy to move from (D&D 3.5).
Pathfinder 2 does not have any precursor, thus factually making it harder to transition to.
I see your point.
For those who wish to transition to PFS2 from PFS1, there is a difficulty factor, but that will vary from GM to GM.
My comment is primarily addressed to those who haven't GMed PFS1. PFS2 is not harder to learn compared to PFS1.
I transitioned from AD&D 1e/2e to PFS1 and it wasn't that hard to learn the basics. It took me a bit to master the finer rules of Pathfinder and in particular how to GM PFS1 because I was so used to free form in AD&D 1e/2e.
Truthfully, I am finding PFS2 to be a lot more fun to GM both live and online than PFS1. Again, YMMV on that which is perfectly fine.
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
Nefreet,
Perhaps.
I like to think I'm picking up on a more generative experience, and sharing it here, with a bit of added analysis. Totally willing to concede though that I may be absolutely wrong or off or what have you.
To answer that question, I think you have to revisit the experience of being "new". Because, as we get better at things, we take for granted certain things that may well be obstacles to those just starting out.
...
logsig, Jeff Morse, Kate Baker,
I agree that repeatable scenarios, asking folks to consider stepping up, and offering support when they do are all good things to do, and I'm not suggesting that a global change to rules is some kind of substitute for that.
I just happen to think they would go well together.
And again, the restrictions / limited incentives to DM seems arbitrary to me, because one might think that there would be fewer restrictions / greater incentives to do so, being that that is the work (along with actively supporting new people) that sustains and grows the community.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And again, the restrictions / limited incentives to DM seems arbitrary to me, because one might think that there would be fewer restrictions / greater incentives to do so, being that that is the work (along with actively supporting new people) that sustains and grows the community.
We had no incentives to DM games back in 1979. However, as we quickly found out, in order to have game we needed a DM. As a result, we began to rotate DMing so that we could play AD&D. After the first year, it sort of settled into a pattern where three or four of us were DMs and everyone else were players who didn't want to DM. I had no financial incentives to DM. I had no boons, no replays, no organized play as incentives. All I had was the fun of DMing which was plenty of fun.
Fast forward to 2016 when I discovered Pathfinder and then Pathfinder Society. The GM rewards were awesome in my opinion. Now it's almost four years later and I'm GMing for the fun of it. Sure, I don't usually pay convention fees, but that's just a bonus. Now, if they would pay for my hotel room that's an incentive! (and they do at Gen Con if I use the room).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is very much *harder* to GM PFS2
Not universally true of course. I find PF2 much easier to GM. The math and mechanics seem tighter with much less (but not zero) ambiguity. The almost Ikea-like instructions seem to lead naturally from step to step improving the efficiency of the learning curve. The rules methodology seems to be very intuitive. Generally the rules themselves don't change, only the data options do. This allows for a much better extrapolation of rules relationships as you peruse across the system. Of course, this is just my opinion and YMMV.
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to drop my 2 coppers into this discussion.
I started to GM because I wanted to see what it is like on the other side of the screen. The GMs in my lodge seemed to be getting a little tired of running all the time so I thought I could help them out and maybe let them play some.
And I didn't start because of any incentives. I know about earning a chronicle if I GMed.
My lodge is fairly small and thus the opportunities to GM and play are limited. Right now, we are getting 3 tables to make during a month for 2e adventures. This is outstanding as it gives the GMs a chance to play and to run. I don't have a problem of balancing who is GMing. If the incentive was to change and I had a GM or two who wanted to pick up running all 3 tables of an adventure because they really like the rewards from the chronicle, well it would cause problems.
I appreciate the OP viewpoint but I don't see a problem that needs to be fixed.
As to the amount of effort or work it takes to GM, of course it is more than playing. That is the nature of the job and one that every GM (and player!) understands. This is why PFS allows the GM to earn a second chronicle.
|
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think repeatable scenarios for PF2 (of which there are a lot more planned) pretty much covers exactly what you're asking for within the system already, as Kate mentioned. If a GM, especially a new GM as you're positing, wants to start running and pick up the baton and get rewards for it all... then repeatables and especially quest repeatables are literally the perfect solution, shorted scenarios, easier to prep which makes them much easier for new GMs to run! Once they're happy with that they can move on to the regular scenario repeatables, exercising their growing skill and actually seeing ways to improve as they're using the same basis each time and can find areas that are done better after trying it once.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would argue that 2nd is more accessible than 1st. Looking from the outside, PFS 1st edition was intimidating to break into, for many reasons. Maybe even a bit insular as a result. There were so many things you had to "know" or "do" to break in, that unless you were already organized into it, it was not something that, in my experience, a person could just walk into casually and try out. That was my experience anyway. Again, outside looking in.2nd edition changed that for me, and I think new people sense that too.
By the time PFS2 came along PFS1 was, indeed, complex enough to be more than a little intimidating for a new GM. But that was because it has had over a decade of growth, a lot of which added new rules and complications.
Back when I found PFS around 8 years ago it was a lot simpler - if you knew your way around the core rulebook (and maybe the advanced players guide) you could probably GM most scenarios without running into a situation you couldn't handle. It wasn't long before I started GMing at a local game store, and a year (and one convention) later I had my first GM star.
Now, though, even with eight years of PFS experience, I find myself far more likely to end up outside my comfort zone. A lot of the added material (Unchained, Occult, Intrigue, ...) has introduced whole new rules subsystems. And that's just in the main rulebooks - if you add in all the Campaign Setting and Player Companion soft-cover books there's far too much material to expect a GM to know it all.
Paizo made an attempt, a few years ago, to lower the GM entry barrier by introducing the 'Core' campaign. I don't know about other parts of the world, but in our local area it seemed to be used more to allow the same old GMs and players another chance to replay scenarios than to introduce newcomers to PFS.
PFS2 is new, and only has a couple of rulebooks for the GM to learn. Paizo have also learned something about rule systems in the last decade, and the underlying architecture seems to be built to be more cleanly extensible. Even so, I expect that ten years from now it too will be showing signs of strain. But that's a long way off.
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
Like many others have said. When I started GM'ing I liked the chronicles. But also like most on here and all the long-time PFS GMs I've talked with I eventually stopped taking chronicles when I ran. I prefer to play my characters rather than just level them up and miss out and playing them as much as I can.
While multiple chronicles for the same scenario sound great to start with, after a while it gets old and boring.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Starting out, the GM chronicle is nice for keeping a character in line with your local community’s level range. But after 500 GM sessions, it’s just an albatross around my neck, taking away actual play time with my character.
Rerunning a scenario you love to share the story/characters/encounters/whatever you like best about it with fresh players is great. Rerunning a scenario just so players can get another XP on their alt is a chore. The attitude and energy of replayers makes or breaks it.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
Starting out, the GM chronicle is nice for keeping a character in line with your local community’s level range. But after 500 GM sessions, it’s just an albatross around my neck, taking away actual play time with my character.
Rerunning a scenario you love to share the story/characters/encounters/whatever you like best about it with fresh players is great. Rerunning a scenario just so players can get another XP on their alt is a chore. The attitude and energy of replayers makes or breaks it.
Bingo on all accounts! Might as well do something productive and hand out the sheets instead of wasting the time going through the motions. While I would enjoy playing a scenario is a different tier such as Hall of the Flesh Eaters (one of my favorites) or The Frost Fur Captives (another superb scenario), it's just a chore after that.
I like rerunning scenarios for players who haven't played it yet. I don't mind it at all as I've gotten comfortable with various NPCs and am able to give them personality that makes the experience better for everyone. But when I was running The Wounded Wisp for the 10th time with players who were playing it for the 5th time or more, it was just either monotonous or we were playing it for laughs to do silly things just to make the time feel like it wasn't a waste.
As for the chronicle sheets, I probably could make at least a 9th level PFS1 character right now. I wouldn't know what it could do and it would be a liability if I ever played it. I would probably have two L5 characters if I was able to put replays on them in PFS2 without playing them at all. What's the fun in that? They would have no personality or flavor to them. I'd be looking up everything they could do when I first played them because I wouldn't have any experience knowing what they could do.
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
Hey good people,
Those of you who are like "I got too many chrons" remember you're not the target audience for this proposed change.
The target audience is those folks, let's call 'em, Reluctant GMs. Not all the happy Uber GMs and Uber Switches that post regularly here - no - rather those folks in your respective communities that may map onto the following:
1) New Players, who enjoy Playing, and may (eventually) be open to Running
2) Players who are willing to GM when the community needs
3) Players, who only Play, and identify as a "Player" (only)
and Secondarily:
4) Folks who prefer the order Play>GM as opposed to GM>Play because of "spoilers"
5) Folks who would prefer to GM>GM rather than GM>Play (or even Play>GM)
...
To reiterate, I'm not saying I'm having a bad time with Society play - quite the contrary I enjoy it - and will continue to both GM and Play with or without a change to the system of incentives (which I find arbitrarily restrictive, if you've been following along). But, I notice a disconnect or "unbalance" that is the result of a 10+ year community complex interaction of both system incentives and participant choice. The result is that many "GMs" GM a disproportionate amount, and that to me seems unfair. Even if those GMs report positive experiences 90% of the time, that still means there are times when, as leadership, they step in beside their own self interest to do the community right.
This speaks to the "problem" as I see it. Maybe this is non-existant where you game. Maybe that makes you the exception to the rule. Maybe the dynamic I mention above is the exception to the rule. But I would argue that it exists, and that maybe, it can be partially interrupted.
To that end, if you disagree that the specific changes to the system of incentives I posit would not substantially impact the dynamic I claim exists, I welcome that feedback, but also pose another question for consideration:
Q) If just a small percent of gamers in your communities (say, 10%) stepped up their GMing time just a small percent (by say, 10%), do you think that would make a noticeable impact?
Cheers!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's sweet of you to be so concerned for Society GMs who don't have access to this forum, and can't speak for themselves. Perhaps some of these GMs who find the current system unfair could be encouraged to speak up and give their opinions.
You seem to be the spokesperson for that group. Perhaps, with a little encouragement from you, they could begin to participate in this conversation.
|
|
4) Folks who prefer the order Play>GM as opposed to GM>Play because of "spoilers"
*backfoot headscratch*
I don't see how your proposal changes anything there. You play you dm you get 2 chronicles. You dm you play you get two chronicles. The order doesn't matter.
This only helps new DMs that are (for some reason) going to run the same scenario over and over (I don't know why that would be happening) that isn't a repeatable (which is specifically made for running over and over)
I'm trying to imagine why thats happening or even how. Are you getting that many new people in to a large venue? Your other players who've already played can't make tables with the new guys when you're re running. I can see where that MIGHT happen to a DM when the place first starts up, but it shouldn't happen on the second cycle through.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The biggest help you can give your 'reluctant' GMs is encouragement, support, and constructive feedback, if they look open to it. Help steer them to scenarios that you know are popular/fun to run/play to their strengths. Help provide maps/minis/pawns if that's something that's holding them back. Have an experienced player on-hand to help with administrivia if that's their concern.
If you have a cadre of reluctant GMs, maybe try organizing a quest day, where each runs one, and then a bit of a round table after to chat about how it went.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area North & East
|
This only helps new DMs that are (for some reason) going to run the same scenario over and over (I don't know why that would be happening) that isn't a repeatable (which is specifically made for running over and over)
While I'm not really in favor of the proposed changes, this one seems pretty easy to answer. Like many metropolitan areas, my region has many venues within driving/public transit distance all running on different nights, etc. It's not uncommon for the same people to play/GM at several of them. A GM could, if they desired, easily sign up to GM the same scenario several times over the span of a week or two.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Consider that under the PFS2 system, GMs get 8 Achievement Points (AcP) for each scenario and 2 Achievement Points (AcP) for each Quest they run outside of cons. Players only get 4 and 1 AcP respectively. Since Org Play staff has pretty much let us know that being able to unlock many of the things that are being released via the Lost Omens line, upcoming modules and Adventure Paths, and releases like the Advanced Players Guide are going to be accomplished through the expenditure of AcP, there's an additional incentive for you right there.
To me, that's even better than the Chronicle Sheets. If that isn't incentive enough to GM, then I don't know what will work. None of the GMs I oversee are doing it for Chronicle Sheets.
I do it for the privilege of hearing a table of players say, "Thank you." That's the best reward I have ever gotten. The rest is gravy and welcome, but sharing the fun with players at my table and hearing them say, "Thank you," is the biggest motivation of them all.
YMMV
|
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Denver
|
Q) If just a small percent of gamers in your communities (say, 10%) stepped up their GMing time just a small percent (by say, 10%), do you think that would make a noticeable impact?
Oh, gawd, yes! Here in Denver, I organize and GM at one store and the VL organizes & GMs at another store. And we GM at each other's store also. No one else steps up to GM. We only have a handful of regular players and now with PF2 being so new, we've been trying to coerce players to step up to GM. No one does. We have good incentives, too! $10 gift card/credit at the store for GMing, Retail Support Program boons (for 1e games), and a free copy of the scenario and the use of any maps or minis from mine or the VL's collection, if needed. From what I've garnered from talking to potential new GMs, it's just "too much work" to do.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As a side note, I'd imagine limiting the credit you get as a GM helps to incentivize new GMs to step up and give a shot. If you've got the same GM every week because he's trying to power up all his characters, then that doesn't leave a lot of room for other people to GM and get that experience as well. I know this isn't always the case depending on the area, but I know that, with my store, I'm GMing each PFS2 scenario only once, and I have other GMs doing the same thing. It gives variety to the players and takes some of the workloads off of the volunteers. You do also earn the AcPs, which should be enough incentive after getting that first boon sheet from GMing.
Maybe as an option people could take two GM sheets from a non-replayable, rather than one GM and one player sheet? It still sort of creates the situation with the same GM all the time at stores.
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's sweet of you to be so concerned for Society GMs who don't have access to this forum, and can't speak for themselves. Perhaps some of these GMs who find the current system unfair could be encouraged to speak up and give their opinions.
You seem to be the spokesperson for that group. Perhaps, with a little encouragement from you, they could begin to participate in this conversation.
Actually, it came to me in a dream!
A thousand tiny distant voices... "rainzax, speak for us, let our voices be heard!..."And so I came to spread the message here.
(passes the tithe basket...)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see. So all this ardent proselytizing is on behalf of imaginary people.
But you're the only person you know of who actually wants this Society-wide change?
Fair enough, but perhaps you'd gain more credibility if you presented your ideas that way, without setting yourself up as spokesperson for a group of people who don't seem to exist.
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
I apologize if I've upset you, CrystalSeas.
Came on here to share something I noticed, to express a viewpoint, and to participate in what I feel to be an interesting conversation.
Up to you to decide how to engage with that, whether that be to ignore, agree / disagree, or ridicule.
Cheers!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it came to me in a dream!
A thousand tiny distant voices... "rainzax, speak for us, let our voices be heard!..."
And so I came to spread the message here.(passes the tithe basket...)
The voices are NOT either a charity or deductible as independents. I asked...
I'm just trying to get you to see how narrow the venn diagram is here. You get the generic argument of "We need more DMs" mixed up with "with solution will get us more DMs" when this solution requires the unusual convergence of
1)A DM that really wants chronicles for multiple times for running a non repeatable- this is more or less synonomous with a new DM
2) The DM is pub crawling between multiple venues (because playing the same non repeatable at the same venue gets harder)
3) The Dm is the ONLY one/very few in the pub crawl... because if everyone from the Goblin Hole is coming over to the Dragons Den you now have a schedueling problem.
4) The same area has the same game going at least three times (because otherwise the new player would ideally Play then DM. You don't have a chronicle problem till play dm dm)
5) Doing a pub crawl with the same game isn't stepping your toes into DMing its a CANNON BAAAAAAALLLLL off the diving board into it
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Illinois—Fairview Heights
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1)A DM that really wants chronicles for multiple times for running a non repeatable- this is more or less synonomous with a new DM
This part has been a sticking point in my mind since the thread began and I've been chewing on it for a while.
If players aren't very incentivized to GM because they get one extra chronicle, why would that be a further enticement with a second or third.
It just seems like a very targeted solution to a narrow band problem which doesn't seem like much of an enticement to new or infrequent GMs.
I will say that the GM incentives for Starfinder are ones I hope are replicated in PFS2. The GM race boon which is earned by GMing games has been a huge encouragement to our GMs (maybe too much because I have too many GMs) also, extra credit for GM over played tables for other boons (see skittermander). Those boons I can tie directly to GMs wanting to GM more. Its rare that any of our GMs run a scenario more than once as we try to get everyone play and GM credit, but even on the rare occasions when they do, I've never had one say "Darn, it's too bad I'm not getting a chronicle for this one".
I'm just trying to see where this helps me attract GMs or get them to GM more. So far none of the discussion is getting me to that answer.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Participating in this thread has taught me that I must be an outlier: I have *never* passed up a Chronicle. When Mike Brock told me that he had never taken a Chronicle for GMing, I thought he was crazy.
The highest "new" character I started was 9th level, but I'll eventually have an SFS character "starting" at 12th level. He'll be the Society continuation of my Dead Suns AP character, and will mostly be made up of GM Chronicles from Dawn of Flame and player Chronicles from Dead Suns. I'm really looking forward to it, and I hope to eventually take him to 20th (if SFS goes that route).
I have had a plethora of characters start around 4th-6th level. I generally dislike playing low-level characters. Playing a 1st level PC as my -2002 right now is torture. I absolutely loved that my Playtest points allowed me to start my first PC at 3rd level.
Hopefully AcP can be traded in to start characters at higher levels, and I can just reflavor my PFS1 characters as PFS2 characters.
|
Actually, it came to me in a dream!
A thousand tiny distant voices... "rainzax, speak for us, let our voices be heard!..."
And so I came to spread the message here.(passes the tithe basket...)
"I see a great hand reaching out of the stars. The hand is your hand. And I hear sounds. The sounds of billions of people calling your name."
"My followers?""Your victims."
(This was in jest, in case tone is lost. Couldn't resist the chance to quote Babylon 5)
1)A DM that really wants chronicles for multiple times for running a non repeatable- this is more or less synonomous with a new DMThis part has been a sticking point in my mind since the thread began and I've been chewing on it for a while.
If players aren't very incentivized to GM because they get one extra chronicle, why would that be a further enticement with a second or third.
Basically, this. If one chronicle for GMing doesn't encourage someone to try it out, multiple chronicles for GMing the same scenario isn't going to do it, either.
As others have noted, the GM rewards system has changed significantly with PFS2 and the Achievement Points system. That system isn't functional yet, so it's difficult to see the additional awards, but I'm almost certain some level of replay credit will eventually make its way into the available boons, which means if you want to get a third chronicle for a scenario, you GM enough to get enough points to purchase a replay (or so I'm assuming).
As a counter example, limiting it to one chronicle for GMing, to me, encourages more people to GM. Instead of a single GM signing up to run the game several times so that everyone in the area can play, the 1st GM runs the 1st table, then one of the players at that table GMs the 2nd, then one from that table GMs the 3rd, etc. Of all of the potential issues that need addressing in PFS right now, extra GM incentives is very low on the priority list, well behind getting the system functional so that we can use the incentives that already exist.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Participating in this thread has taught me that I must be an outlier: I have *never* passed up a Chronicle. When Mike Brock told me that he had never taken a Chronicle for GMing, I thought he was crazy.
I don't turn them down either and don't re-run the same scenario much.
And I think that's working exactly as intended. One GM re-running the same scenario over and over isn't actually desirable. It creates scheduling problems and deprives other people of the chance to GM that scenario. By only getting credit for running a scenario once, you create a natural incentive to move on to the next scenario, which is how it's supposed to go.
Now, if new people are saying getting into GMing is too hard, that's something you should investigate; what are they finding too hard? Is there a way you can make that easier?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
Hey good people,
Those of you who are like "I got too many chrons" remember you're not the target audience for this proposed change.
As others have pointed out, we all started as new GM's at some point. "I get too many chronicles" may be an issue of veteran GM's, but I don't see anyone saying "I wish I could have run the same adventure multiple times when I was starting out." And, if you do want to "learn one adventure very thoroughly and then run it multiple times", pick a repeatable, that way you avoid the "everyone has already played this" problem too.
The target audience is those folks, let's call 'em, Reluctant GMs.
I don't think it is. If someone isn't willing to run an adventure even once, why would they suddenly be interested in running the same thing multiple times?
1) New Players, who enjoy Playing, and may (eventually) be open to Running
2) Players who are willing to GM when the community needs
3) Players, who only Play, and identify as a "Player" (only)
1. These are the people the community grows with. In my experience, our new people generally pick their first game to GM based on the adventure they liked/felt like would be fun to run/had good rewards. If one GM has already run that 3 times, the new GM can't run that, as there is not an infinite supply of new player. GMing same adventure multiple times "locks it up" from new GM's.
2. We have a couple of these, locally. They tend to run repeatables, or easy, dungeon-crawley scenarios with less roleplay (in 1st edition), usually with the intention of getting xp for one of their characters in the process. Running the same adventure twice won't help there if you can't apply the same sheet to the same character twice.3. These people don't usually want to GM, and that's okay. I fail to see how "hey, do you want to GM this thing TWICE?" is better than "would you maybe run this adventure Even Once?"
4) Folks who prefer the order Play>GM as opposed to GM>Play because of "spoilers"
5) Folks who would prefer to GM>GM rather than GM>Play (or even Play>GM)
4. I'm a Play-> GM when possible, but it's not "mandatory" for me. This change isn't really doing anything for people who play->Gm -> You've seen this thing twice, you have two sheets for it. To even be interested in a third sheet, you'd have to have three society characters, and then you're getting one third of the xp for your characters that other people (who play just one character) are getting, and the rest of the lodge outlevels you pretty quickly.
5. We have a 2e GM who GM's mostly. See the above point. Running new scenarios ensures her character levels at the roughly the same pace, and can take part in the adventures when she doesn't GM. We recently had a player step up and GM 2e for the second time. That would not have probably happened if our regular GM had already ran the adventure twice and the new GM couldn't have GM'd it.The result is that many "GMs" GM a disproportionate amount, and that to me seems unfair. Even if those GMs report positive experiences 90% of the time, that still means there are times when, as leadership, they step in beside their own self interest to do the community right.
You're right! But your suggestion isn't aimed at the people who GM disproportionate amounts. Or rather, it is, but you make it seem like it's aimed at new GM's. Your suggestion is effectively "hey, maybe the people who already GM, could GM more?" by giving them more credit for running the same adventure multiple times. This doesn't help those people who are already reluctant, to step up. It may end up discouraging them as they need to potentially run something completely new instead of something that they've already played once.
Q) If just a small percent of gamers in your communities (say, 10%) stepped up...
Yes. If they did step up, it would help. The problem isn't their second step though - it's the first one. I'm all for incentivizing people to Start GMing, but this suggestion is aimed at "GM MORE" which is already sort of problematic, as the problem is lack of new GM's, not "already GM's" GMing constantly.
As a counter proposal, I want to throw this up here:
How about we give GM's two chronicle sheets for running (to give to different characters) instead of one? Possibly for a limited time, let's say, they can do this 5 or 10 times. Old/veteran GM's don't need the extra sheets, but new people, new GM's, might be glad for the opportunity to level up TWO characters with one scenario - and this might feel "justifiable" given that GM's do more work towards a session than players do. You do the prepping, and you do the running - you get two sheets.
How would that sound?
|
|
How about we give GM's two chronicle sheets for running (to give to different characters) instead of one? Possibly for a limited time, let's say, they can do this 5 or 10 times.
You've drank the Kool-Aid.
Multiple GM chronicles isn't the solution to the problem of too few people volunteering to GM. Therefor, it is not an idea that needs to be compromised upon (not to mention that no one in this thread has the authority to change the system so compromising on our opinions doesn't serve a purpose).
1. Repeatable scenarios (of which there are 3 scenarios and 2 quests in PFS(2) so far) already provide this effect.
2. Multiple GM chronicles produces the opposite effect: encouraging the same GM to keep running the same thing.
3. Quests provide a lower price point ($1.99) for entry for GMs who have to buy their scenarios themselves.
A true incentive to "step up" would be terribly abusable in at least three environments (PbP, Cons, cities with multiple lodges), but it would look like this: If you are a 0-star GM, you get X reward after N (1-10) boxes checked for GMing a scenario.
|
|
We generally have a different GM pool for the launch of PF2 than we did for the launch of PF1. Back then most GMs we’re experienced with other game system and possibly organized play campaigns. We weren’t really learning how to GM, just adding the system mechanics to an already developed suite of skills. However, in the later half of PFS1 and now PF2, we have a much higher ratio of truly n00b GMs who have to not only learn the system mechanics but develop their overall GMing skills and develop a comfortable style. That is extremely difficult to do in a community where you may have completely different players (with vastly different play styles) in addition to the vast array of character builds. There is certainly some value in running content repeatedly so you can more easily compare and contrast with at least some control parameters. I’m not saying that we should expand GM credit, but maybe there is another way to reward GMs in a position to re-run material without making it desirable over running new content. Though I admit, I am at a loss as to what that reward could be.
|
Venture-Captain, Online—VTT
|
Hey good people,
Those of you who are like "I got too many chrons" remember you're not the target audience for this proposed change.The target audience is those folks, let's call 'em, Reluctant GMs. Not all the happy Uber GMs and Uber Switches that post regularly here - no - rather those folks in your respective communities that may map onto the following:
You seem to have missed or not really considered all the posts where people have mentioned that the repeatable quests and then scenarios for PF2 actively fulfill this exact requirement you are concerned about.
Repeatable quests: Good entry point, shorter & easier to prepare/run for a new GM with limited exposure so they can get used to the role
Repeatable scenarios: Longer form to allow more chance for a GM to learn & practice their skills and begin to experience games are lengthier
Both forms give a chronicle sheet each time and are planned to be present in ever increasing numbers which means that any worry of limited options will quickly become irrelevant, it solves every part of the problem that you're seeing in your area.
The fact that despite this you presumably still feel people aren't stepping up to GM locally means that that problem isn't what you think, if it was a lack of extra chronicle sheets then since that isn't actually the case you would see lots more GMs in your area, so you need to look elsewhere.
Perhaps the local environment isn't friendly to new GMs and there are cliques or such so you need to look at finding a way to break that up, perhaps people are intimidated by the quality of the local GMs in which case you might want to look at a mentoring system, or perhaps people just don't want to GM and would rather play or do nothing than GM in your local area. I hope you can figure out what the issue is and start getting more GMs but whatever it is, lack of rewards is clearly not the issue since that's not actually something that is a problem.