New to PFS - Why no GM / GM credit nor General Chronicle Sheet?


Pathfinder Society

101 to 140 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Dark Archive 4/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

Blake's Tiger wrote:
Quote:
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.

Just to clarify, I don't think this is necessary. I'm merely iterating on the OP's suggestion (let GM's get more chronicles from the same adventure) in a way that does not prevent others from running the same adventure again. Specifically, if OP wishes to encourage more people to GM, I think the first step is to reward GM more for the time they've spent. So, you spend couple of hours prepping an adventure, and then couple of hours running it - you could get two sheets (when players get just one) because you've spent more time to make the game happen.

I firmly believe that the problem isn't to keep people GMing, it's to get them started on GMing. The first adventure is always the most difficult one. I've used the convention GM boon as a carrot multiple times to entice new people to try GMing, but that doesn't work in a regular lodge environment if you don't have a con. You get more ACP for running games, but that's not implemented yet - and depending on what, say, race boons cost, an extra 4 points might not even be that much of an incentive. In PFS1 we have the RSP, but to gain the benefits of RSP, you need to run 6/12(/24) games - and if you've never ran a single game, the thought that "hey, if I keep running one game per month, I'll get this cool race... next year" might not be enough of an incentive.

Thus, my suggestion was the first thing that came to my mind from OP's original proposal - Reward new GM's by letting them give the sheet (xp, gold, fame, etc) to two of their characters instead of just one when they run an adventure. It doesn't rob anyone of the chance to run the same adventure later, it doesn't incentivize old/veteran GM's to run more, and it doesn't unbalance the local XP/level spread in the long run if you limit it to just a couple of scenarios per GM.

I've only ran one 2e game so far. I have just one 2e character. I also have one or two other concepts I would want to make. I know that -at this time- knowing I could both advance my current character AND get started on a new character by running a game would work as an incentive for me to start running 2e games.

Again to reiterate, I don't think this sort of change is -necessary-, but if we want to discuss options the campaign might take to encourage new GM's to step up and start GMing, then rewards that only apply to new GM's and/or are achievable immediately and not just after several months of GMing, are the ones we should focus the discussion on.

4/5 **

4 people marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:

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.

... except they ARE, because all changes affect everyone.

Please understand that no one's experience is universal, but also that those who have been here for a decade have seen many things tried and have also networked with others on this forum on these issues for a long time. You're not the first person to identify this potential "solution" to this potential "problem". My point isn't that there is no problem, or that the solution doesn't work to solve this one issue. My point is, the unintended consequences will do more harm than good.

My local lodge were the ones who did the infamous "Fallen Fortress Speed Runs" to lock in a bunch of aasmiars before the grandfathering deadline*, despite John Compton saying explicitly that the OP team didn't want that to happen.I can tell you first-hand that when there is a system that can be abused, it will be - and not just by "bad people" (whatever that means). By people who look at the letter of the rule, ignore context, and say, "well, it's technically legal, so I must be able to do it over and over".

Credit for GMing more than once opens GMing as a way for such players to min-max certain boons/chronicles/credits/etc. The OP seems to need more GMs, but I can say with some certainty that this is not the way you want to attract them.

*:
If you weren't around then, Paizo announced that aasimars and tieflings were going to become boon-only races by X date, but if you had already played one or more games with a PC then the race would be grandfathered in for the life of that PC. Some folks ran Fallen Fortress I think 6 times in a row, so they would have "enough" aasimars for future PCs. The fastest game took 16 minutes, start to finish. Luckily, this was done privately, and so no new players were exposed to such a terrible example of what an RPG is.

4/5 **

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's the thing. If you convince your local community that GMing is a duty or a burden that has to be shared only out of necessity or fairness, you will always have a GM recruitment issue. Whatever incentives are provided, they will never be enough. (Did you know that GMs used to not even get a Chronicle? Somehow, games still ran.)

The message should be: GMing is fun, as fun, maybe more fun, than being a PC. GMing lets me play all sorts of characters and bring them to life. GMing lets me bring the amazingly rich setting of Golarion to life. GMing lets me build 3d terrain if I want, or develop funny voices, or make cool handouts. GMing lets me help other players develop their characters, by providing story and NPCs and roleplay for them to work with. (Yes, even with PFS scenarios that you can't change.)

AND... GMing builds the community. New players don't generally show up and GM their first time out, so an experienced player running a beginner scenario is a great way to develop new GMs and new players. We went from one biweekly table at one game store to 12+ games per week at four locations at our peak, and went from 3 players to more than 250, because a few folks stepped up to GM. So sure, there are lots of benefits to GMing, but almost none of them involve what Paizo gives you.

Verdant Wheel ***

Good points all around. Perhaps this conversation is nearing it's end short of repeating earlier points, but with that in mind, I'd like to share a couple more thoughts.

PFS has had over a decade to study itself internally, which include the Boon Abuse horror stories mentioned above and earlier in the thread, and as a result, I would bet has learned many lessons towards how to do and how not to do certain things. I can tell from how the new mechanics are laid out in the Core Rulebook that the designers have clear ideas about how "incentives" work with, say for example, respect to Managing Resources (quick example: cantrips vs focus spells vs spell slots), in such a way as to keep Character Choices as an Interesting Phenomenon generally. And to that end, I am not so sure that limiting GMing credit (to once per Scenario) is a necessary part of that balancing act as regards Society play. Many of you here disagree. But I would argue that, potentially, there are (theoretical) positives that might outweigh (theoretical) negatives.

Consider that the hardest "inertial" challenge is to support a new (or Reluctant) GM to step up to their first few games. Also consider that after this initial challenge is met, all the other "rewards" of GMing (mentioned upthread) that are exterior to early system incentives can begin to kick in (The new / Reluctant GM starts to share everyone here's love of GMing for it's own sake, etc).

I think key to this moment is Yes, offering many kinds of support as folks have mentioned upthread, such as a pep talk, sharing resources, offering to Co-GM, workshops, round-robin Quests, store credit, buy them a drink, etc.

That in place, I would argue that also having some system incentives in your "toolkit" would double down all that put-in effort by offering this new GM the following crossroad. They have already Prepared and Run "scenario x", and now have the option to "Cannonball" (thanks BigNorseWolf) into PFS by having the option to Play or Run "scenario x" again, whereby, having already done the Prep work - arguably the biggest hurdle! - they are essentially choosing between Playing a fully-spoiled "scenario x" or GMing "scenario x" with both half the requisite work and a single cycle of feedback to draw upon.

Whether or not you agree with my premise and claim, I think we can all agree that this is an interesting "moment" in a new GM's experience!

Cheers.

...

Btw, I'm also interested to hear what folks think about Tommi Ketonen's suggestion to grant Two Chronicle Sheets (perhaps the second is "General"?) for a new GM's first few games? I hadn't thought of that at all and am curious what others think.

The Exchange 4/5

googled this for you. have heard there lodge did a GREAT job in putting this together. quick count, I think a dozen at least. I think they could get there first star with just these.
https://pittsburghpfs.com/resources/evergreens-list/

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
I would argue that, potentially, there are (theoretical) positives that might outweigh (theoretical) negatives.

Since most people in this thread argue the opposite, I guess that's a good place to leave the discussion for Leadership to review.

2/5 5/5 **

2 people marked this as a favorite.

No one suggestion is going to incentivize all people everywhere. What is going to motivate each non-GM participant to try their hand at GMing is going to differ by individual. Conventions--where you need GMs to fire tables to sell tickets--use(d) race boons and sometimes gift certificates; those work pretty well in those circumstances. RSP GM boons work in some places to incentivize GMing. The AcP system is supposed to incentivize GMing PFS(2), but right now it's like a cryptocurrency you can't spend.

PbP hosts GM School sessions (using repeatable scenarios) to ease new GMs into GMing (and into GMing in our particular format). Some places that charge table taxes give their GMs tokens to pay the table tax when they play. Some places give gift certificates to the venue where the games are held.

Grand Lodge 4/5

rainzax wrote:
I would argue that, potentially, there are (theoretical) positives that might outweigh (theoretical) negatives.

What's better to measure is practical applications of it, but afaic, how the current situation pans out doesn't warrant changing it. There's seeing in the longer term.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

GM Lamplighter wrote:
The message should be

Here's another one. How many times have you said after a game, "that GM wasn't very good. I could do better than that?" Now's your chance. I believe that most people want what's best for out community. So, run a few games and show the other GMs how to do it better. Everyone is better off for it.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Nefreet wrote:
Since most people in this thread...

I would hope that leadership rarely, if ever, uses the opinions of a few or even a few dozen people in a message board thread to make campaign-wide decisions. We are, afterall, just a VERY small portion of the community, albeit usually the most vocal. What might appear to be an overwhelming opinion in here is not necessary what the community wants or needs.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/55/5 ****

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
GM Lamplighter wrote:
The message should be
Here's another one. How many times have you said after a game, "that GM wasn't very good. I could do better than that?" Now's your chance. I believe that most people want what's best for out community. So, run a few games and show the other GMs how to do it better. Everyone is better off for it.

To this end, if I see something that a GM is doing that I like (or don't like) I try to incorporate into (or out of) my table when I GM.

This is why I like to go to conventions. I get to see how other GMs and Players are doing things and take home with me the good parts!

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bob Jonquet wrote:
Nefreet wrote:
Since most people in this thread...
I would hope that leadership rarely, if ever, uses the opinions of a few or even a few dozen people in a message board thread to make campaign-wide decisions. We are, afterall, just a VERY small portion of the community, albeit usually the most vocal. What might appear to be an overwhelming opinion in here is not necessary what the community wants or needs.

This is the second time this week you've quoted part of a single sentence and lost the context of the entire post.

Literally the second half of that sentence addresses exactly what you're saying.

Likewise, the post I quoted and was replying to provides further context.

Before you snip someone's post down to the bullet points you disagree with, try reading everything together and see if the meaning changes.

Verdant Wheel ***

With Nefreet's permission to continue...

Do folks here think that GM > Play (that is, GMing a Scenario first then Playing it second) poses potential problems for everyone involved?

What I mean by this is that it seems to me that Playing through a Scenario that you have already GMed removes all the "mystery" of it. So much so that I would imagine that folks generally much prefer to Play > GM, because then you get to keep the "mystery" while also getting to do both sides of the screen.

Too, the temptation to metagame, conscious or subconscious, poses itself.

I had a player just last week who had previosuly GMed the Scenario I was running that night, and, perhaps by coincidence, perhaps not, brought a character that was the perfect foil to the final encounter (a niche ability that bypassed a niche resistance), to the tangible dismay of the rest of the party. Of course, we were all adults about it, extending the benefit of the doubt notwithstanding.

But it got me thinking about this thread again...

Dark Archive 4/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eh, I don't think that particular experience has anything to do with this thread's original premise or goal. Regardless:

You -are- required to inform the GM if you've already ran or played an adventure, and "the GM maintains the right to deny running the adventure for you if they feel uncomfortable running the event for players who have foreknowledge of the story."

Locally, if one or more players are already familiar with the adventure, those people usually sit back and let the players who haven't yet played/GM'd the scenario take the lead, stepping in mostly just when it's really needed, to avoid mixing OOC and IC information / metagaming. If you, as a GM, suspect foul play, you should talk about it with the person and if it was on purpose / you feel it was inappropriate, you might exclude them in the future from similar situations.

Even if they had just 2 characters and the niche ability is permanent part of the other one (so they really had no choice in the matter), I'd ask them to tone it down in the future. They knew the adventure, they knew they had a perfect counter - they should have let the rest of the party deal with the problem, and they could have kept that ace up their sleeve until it was really, really needed, instead of (I assume) practically soloing the fight/dominating it from the beginning.

(As with superheroes - with great power comes great responsibility, and I believe that if your PC is turbo-charged, you should know to hold yourself back so that you don't hog all the lime light, regardless of if you knew what was coming or if you are just super good at what you do.)

4/5 *

rainzax wrote:

With Nefreet's permission to continue...

Do folks here think that GM > Play (that is, GMing a Scenario first then Playing it second) poses potential problems for everyone involved?

What I mean by this is that it seems to me that Playing through a Scenario that you have already GMed removes all the "mystery" of it. So much so that I would imagine that folks generally much prefer to Play > GM, because then you get to keep the "mystery" while also getting to do both sides of the screen.

Too, the temptation to metagame, conscious or subconscious, poses itself.

I had a player just last week who had previosuly GMed the Scenario I was running that night, and, perhaps by coincidence, perhaps not, brought a character that was the perfect foil to the final encounter (a niche ability that bypassed a niche resistance), to the tangible dismay of the rest of the party. Of course, we were all adults about it, extending the benefit of the doubt notwithstanding.

But it got me thinking about this thread again...

It is pretty well ingrained into the local PFS/SFS culture where I am playing to not act on out of character knowledge if you are playing a scenario you have previously run or using a boon to replay a scenario. This usually takes the form of letting other players make most of the decisions or acting in the way your character would act without regard to the scenario mechanics. Just as one example of this, there was a scenario where I OOC knew that there was an explosive runes trap on the wall, but in character as Pathfinders we should read and document everything for our Venture Captain. So following our instructions, I took notes on everything, had the spell blow up in my face, and rolled a reflex save hoping for the best.

5/5 5/55/55/5

rainzax wrote:


What I mean by this is that it seems to me that Playing through a Scenario that you have already GMed removes all the "mystery" of it.

It's less than ideal but less bad than all of the alternatives.

I have big dumb fighter/uncaring fighter types to play those scenarios when possible to avoid metagaming.

Re your original proposal. What you wind up doing is rewarding cannonballing. Which I think may not be the best idea.

1) You dont want to hit DM burn out THAT early

2) Instead of DM game prep game dm game prep game you'd be better off Dming and slowly letting what happened percolate a bit before trying again. What went well, what didn't, what were the players expecting etc. There's a million little things NOT in the guide that you pick up from organized play culture

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

rainzax wrote:
With Nefreet's permission to continue...

This is really not necessary.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 **** Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant

1 person marked this as a favorite.

One way I look at people playing characters who perfectly fit the scenario after they've played it before or gm'd it is, the Venture-Captain was actually competent in selecting the right pathfinder for the mission. lol

Locally we do expect if you've got experience with the scenario to try to take a bit of a backseat in major decisions.

In my 300+ scenarios I've run I've never seen it be a problem.

Verdant Wheel ***

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:
One way I look at people playing characters who perfectly fit the scenario after they've played it before or gm'd it is, the Venture-Captain was actually competent in selecting the right pathfinder for the mission. lol

Good point.

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

I strongly prefer playing before GMing just because I enjoy it more. I have a pretty good memory, and if I've seriously prepped to run a scenario and then play it later, I'll have to constantly bite my tongue.

In my experience the scenarios I enjoy replaying the most were those where most of the fun didn't come out of "the reveal" of a mystery, but out of challenging combats. That's why I liked Tome of Righteous Repose and Beyond the Halflight Path the most of all of the evergreens. There's only so many ways you can stretch The Confirmation and its friends while keeping them new.

When I replay, I make sure to also point it out to the other players: "guys, I'm going to make you guys do the decision-making and deduction; it's not because I'm not interested but because I don't want to spoil it for you". So like BNW said, replaying works better with dumb characters than when you're playing the Face character.

Grand Lodge 4/5

I don't think it changes a lot of things whether you play or GM first. It's mostly down on player self-discipline. That said, not everybody can do that, and I can see why playing first, GM after. But at least one out of 6/7 has to GM first, or there's no game.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

rainzax wrote:
I'd love to be able to put in some prep work for a Scenario, and then run it more than once towards crediting multiple Society characters.

This is already possible via Repeatable Adventures.

Have you already run them multiple times each?

Verdant Wheel ***

Nefreet wrote:
rainzax wrote:
I'd love to be able to put in some prep work for a Scenario, and then run it more than once towards crediting multiple Society characters.

This is already possible via Repeatable Adventures.

Have you already run them multiple times each?

I start Wednesday.

Still bummed this special incentive is in reserve as an exception rather than a rule tho...

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

You needn't be.

PFS2 is starting off with more replay than either PFS1 or SFS.

1/5 *

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There are currently 3 repeatable scenarios (plus two repeatable quests). As Nefreet said, that's a lot for the start of this campaign. If you stick to running those, you'll have as many 2nd level GM credit characters as you want (or perhaps, as many as your local player group will support). How often do you plan to GM PFS?

Verdant Wheel ***

Ooh good question.

There are a couple of "Explore-y" Scenarios that have my attention, because as a Home DM who is stepping up to GM Society games to balance my Play-GM ratio, those are the aspects of 2nd edition I am most interested in exploring (no pun). One of those is Repeatable to my knowledge so far.

So to answer your question, I want to do my share, and given the choice, would prefer running Scenarios of a certain type that suit my interest and style.

And so I still find the restrictions on which Scenarios may be repeatedly GMed to be, in a word, arbitrary.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

How do you define "arbitrary"?

As a longtime Society player and GM, I know this is not true, but I am curious why someone new believes it to be.

Verdant Wheel ***

Nefreet wrote:

How do you define "arbitrary"?

As a longtime Society player and GM, I know this is not true, but I am curious why someone new believes it to be.

Suffice it to say, that, without rehashing this thread's well-made points on both sides, I remain unconvinced that the Pros of limiting crediting a scenario to "play once, GM once (with the exception of Repeatables)" outweigh the Cons.

If I think of another way to explain it, I'll pop back in to do so. And perhaps time will change my opinion, but perhaps not.

No matter what happens, I will integrate myself into Society play, because, with the exception of GMing my fair share, it's my opportunity to experience the other side of the screen, and I am having fun with it no matter what role I'm in.

Cheers!

Grand Lodge 4/5

rainzax wrote:

Ooh good question.

There are a couple of "Explore-y" Scenarios that have my attention, because as a Home DM who is stepping up to GM Society games to balance my Play-GM ratio, those are the aspects of 2nd edition I am most interested in exploring (no pun). One of those is Repeatable to my knowledge so far.

So to answer your question, I want to do my share, and given the choice, would prefer running Scenarios of a certain type that suit my interest and style.

And so I still find the restrictions on which Scenarios may be repeatedly GMed to be, in a word, arbitrary.

Replayability only works if the scenario/module/else is designed as such from the start, cf with multiple choices/conclusions/else to ensure this is different from the first play to the second, and to the third. Outside of these, this would make zero sense. Unlimited replayability would be more harmful than else because of the fatigue. The early days of Adventurer's League DnD 5 are a proof of that.

I would step back my GMing if more opened replayability comes online.

Sczarni 5/5 5/55/5 ***

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

How do you define "arbitrary"?

As a longtime Society player and GM, I know this is not true, but I am curious why someone new believes it to be.

Suffice it to say, that, without rehashing this thread's well-made points on both sides...

That's not the question I asked.

We obviously have our differences in opinion. And that's fine.

I'm asking why you think the decision was made arbitrarily.

Arbitrary: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system"

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/55/5 ****

1 person marked this as a favorite.
rainzax wrote:
Nefreet wrote:

How do you define "arbitrary"?

As a longtime Society player and GM, I know this is not true, but I am curious why someone new believes it to be.

Suffice it to say, that, without rehashing this thread's well-made points on both sides, I remain unconvinced that the Pros of limiting crediting a scenario to "play once, GM once (with the exception of Repeatables)" outweigh the Cons.

If I think of another way to explain it, I'll pop back in to do so. And perhaps time will change my opinion, but perhaps not.

No matter what happens, I will integrate myself into Society play, because, with the exception of GMing my fair share, it's my opportunity to experience the other side of the screen, and I am having fun with it no matter what role I'm in.

Cheers!

It does appear that you are different breed of GM. Having ran the same scenario multiple times at GenCon, I found that I stopped enjoying the experience after a 4 or 5 runs. Yes, it became easier and I could get more into the role playing aspects of the adventure, but having the same challenges and the same (mostly) solutions to the challenges presented became stressful because I started to feel like I didn't care if the adventure was fun for the players or not.

This is the reason why I don't like to run the same scenario more than twice.

I also find repeatables not enjoyable. They are a more complex to prepare for because they are designed to have variable encounters. This means the GM has to be ready for (usually) 3 times as much in the way of encounters, with only 1 actually being ran. Yes, I can just pick one option and go with that, but if there are players who have played that option than I need to mix it up for them.

This is also why there are not more repeatables. They are harder to produce than a normal adventure. Or at least I think that is the case.

As to the Con for running the same scenario multiple times, it has been expressed that being able to get the reward on multiple characters can lead to undesired behaviors. This may not be true for the OP, but it is true enough that the decision was made to limit the opportunities for the behavior to occur.

4/5 **

3 people marked this as a favorite.

What is missing from your perspective, rainzax, is that you're only looking at the situation from two of the three necessary viewpoints. You're looking at players, and you're looking at GMs - which is more than many people do when asking for changes. But the third viewpoint is that of an event coordinator - not just running one table, or a few tables, but hundreds of tables in multiple locations, for people who are outside of your local area.

You can only build up a big enough representative sample of behaviors once you remove the various regional biases and "friend factor" that most small groups take for granted. You might not see abuse of a certain kind that is rampant in other areas, or you may have a group that misread a rule early on and has been doing things "wrong" for years, or you may have really nice or really mean players. Even once you get new people joining your local lodge, you still have the effect of the local people that influences how the game is played in your area. Go to a large con and play with players and GMs you don't know, and you will find things you never even imagined would or could happen at a PFS table. (Both good and bad!)

It is a truism of organized play that there is a group of people who will push the grey areas of the rules until they break. We don't make rules for the reasonable people; we make rules for the unreasonable people who can't be counted on to consider the entire group.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Eric Clingenpeel wrote:

One way I look at people playing characters who perfectly fit the scenario after they've played it before or gm'd it is, the Venture-Captain was actually competent in selecting the right pathfinder for the mission. lol

Locally we do expect if you've got experience with the scenario to try to take a bit of a backseat in major decisions.

In my 300+ scenarios I've run I've never seen it be a problem.

So for an adventure into the tanglebriar, we had a swamp druid with a swamp domain who belly rubbed the thing on the cover and the tanglebriar specific ranger.

"How'd we get such a perfect party for a trip into the swamp?"

"We were SUPPOSED to be going to a diplomatic function"

"...that explains so . so. much..."

Sovereign Court 3/5 5/5 *

3 people marked this as a favorite.

During the last bit of PFS 1 I had a merfolk cleric that I'd take on any mission that suggested water. The local joke was that someone in the Grand Lodge HR department was actually competent at their job and was thus doomed to be fired in the next month.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/55/5 ****

I have a merfolk Spellslinger who I try and play in all water adventures.

4/5 *

As long as we're telling stories of actually appropriate missions, there was one mission which sent the party on a race through the wilderness with no equipment. I brought a halfling sylvan bloodline sorceror with a pterosaur animal companion. I cast ant haul and rode it.

Customer Service Representative

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Removed a post and its replies.

Please avoid language that attacks individuals personally.

101 to 140 of 140 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / New to PFS - Why no GM / GM credit nor General Chronicle Sheet? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.