Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
As the title.
Long-time player, brand new to Society play.
One would think that PFS would create and sustain incentives for new folks to "step up" and GM - especially in this new era wherein the game itself lends itself to being more easy to run.
A friendly suggestion from our local Organizer was the following:
1) You may GM a Scenario twice and obtain credit towards two different characters (rather than GM once / Play once).
2) You may GM a Scenario a third/fourth/etc time to obtain a "General Chronicle Sheet" for just XP/Gold towards different characters.
So my question is this: Why is such an incentive system not in place?
Cheers.
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
Contrarily yet respectfully, I would argue that the incentive system we currently have works best to support people who primarily identify as "Players" opposite people who primarily identify as "GMs" (with those in the latter group putting in more time, money, and/or work disproportionately).
And that this dynamic is somewhat normalized.
Assuming you can agree, partially agree, or at least acknowledge that this dynamic can/may/does exist, what I am wondering is this:
What role does the incentive system play in creating and sustaining this (unbalanced) dynamic?
Cheers.
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
BigNorseWolf,
Thank you for elaborating on the extended benefits of the current incentive system. Cool.
Do you think, as Darrell Impey UK above does, that this current system "works"?
Or would you concede that there exists an unbalanced dynamic somewhat as I described above?
Cheers.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, I think it's difficult to say much about how the PFS2 system works because the AcPs we've been accumulating literally cannot be spent on anything and exactly when that will be possible and what the price for any particular thing remains unclear. I do think the bonuses to GMing at conventions is weirdly small (25% bonus at "Premier" conventions, 50% at "Premier Plus", no reward at all for GMing at a non-Premier con, the AcPs you get are identical to what you'd get for running it at home).
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
I am posting to the messageboards because I expect more than a few "longtime GMs" to potentially respond here. What I am asking these "longtime GMs" is to remember back to the time you first "stepped up" to start running games. And, as a gaming community is more-or-less defined by the work you folk put in buying, prepping, and running Society games, I feel my question is simple to ask but perhaps difficult to answer:
Do you think the benefits of stepping up to GM are proportionately rewarded (incentivized)?
|
Do you think the benefits of stepping up to GM are proportionately rewarded (incentivized)?
I expect to see a lot of variation in responses as individuals will have different needs.
I prefer to GM rather than play. Hence, the rewards are far greater than are needed for me to GM.
If you are considering GMing, then only you can decide whether the rewards are adequate for you. Some GMs only want to GM a scenario once because they always want a chronicle sheet when GMing; that's OK.
If the Paizo OPF team feels that the rewards are not enough to recruit GMs, then I expect that they would change the incentive package. The current format is largely the same as it was when I started PFS six years ago. I wouldn't expect it to change dramatically in the near-term.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BigNorseWolf,
Thank you for elaborating on the extended benefits of the current incentive system. Cool.Do you think, as Darrell Impey UK above does, that this current system "works"?
Or would you concede that there exists an unbalanced dynamic somewhat as I described above?
Cheers.
I can't speak for PFS 2. I think the PFS needed a tweak and the online SFS boon could use a bit of a tweak up. Meatspace SFS boon seems about right.
I was in a lot of the torch and pitchfork mobs arguing for non convention Dms to get some goodies, and we got them.
As for DMing to get credit...
really, if you're dming that much after a while the credit is more or less superfluous. I lose track of where the credit is supposed to go and just run again to get the paperwork right.
The argument against letting the DM get multiple chronicles means that if a chronicle is really good, a DM can farm the heck out of it and make ALL their characters more powerful than intended (which means we'd need to go back to chronicle boons being pointless, those were dark times...)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why...?
You will find that the campaign leadership rarely explains why they make the decisions they do other than to say its the one they feel is in the best interest of the campaign. The reason is that in almost every case, when they give their reasons it creates arguments as people dissect the info to point out flaws which are almost always based on opinion rather than fact. Think of it like when your parents say, "because I told you so." You might not like that answer, but its often the one we get.
Generally speaking you will get a lot of different views in the messagboards, but you will rarely get a true true feel for what the majority of the community thinks. Most people who post in here are the "hard core" participants with very strong feelings about what works, but that is usually viewed thru their own bias. What works in one area, does not work somewhere else. The campaign leadership tries to have rules that they think will be "best" for the widest range of players.
Personally, I think the current system works well and I am generally opposed to anything that expands GM credits, replays, etc. Of course, YMMV
|
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Denver
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I prefer 1 chronicle for Playing & 1 for GMing. I GM and play 50/50. There are too many scenarios in 1e. There are just the right amount of replayables where I could apply those every time I GMd. With 2e, they are making a lot more replayables which is nice for getting some good items for any of your characters.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking as someone who's GMed nearly 400 tables combined of PFS1/SFS in 8 years, I liked the rewards towards the end of PFS1 over SFS (nobody can speak to the benefits of GMing PFS2, yet). I had each of the 3 Schools Chronicles, and I hope something like that comes up in SFS. Race boons were an incentive in PFS1; I don't find them as lucrative in SFS. There were some really nifty non-race boons in PFS1; I think there's only one that caught my eye in SFS, and after I got one, I didn't need another. I'm a big Forum poster, so those little symbols next to my name are a big deal to me (also why I never want a VO title; I don't want to lose my Forum handle).
But also, I just like GMing. You get to read the "behind the scenes" background information that you might not get as a player. I love creating visuals and grabbing the right miniatures and offering a memorable and fun experience. Sometimes when there's no incentive to GM, I still have fun doing it.
If there were no incentives beyond the one Chronicle, would you still be interested?
|
|
One would think that PFS would create and sustain incentives for new folks to "step up" and GM
Why would one think that?
For every game that's run, you need 1 GM and 4-6 players. So for every 4-6 people who exclusively play, you only need 1 person who exclusively GMs.
PFS doesn't really need to change this dynamic. Many places that have regular games are exactly built around 1-2 people who regularly GMs.
Your local venture agent may need incentives for people to "step up," but that's outside of the PFS's control. I would suggest creating incentives that don't radically affect the Chronicle economy to start, and then escalate as needed.
Most of my local groups have a rule that the GM doesn't pay any table fees. That partially offsets the cost 9f buying the scenario. If I were in charge of keeping a game going, I'd offer to "co-GM" with first time GMs to reduce the scariness.
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
Wow a lot of good responses.
Going to begin a response by attempting to summarize my audience: You are all probably GMs who have "stepped up" disproportionally in your respective gaming communities:
1) Gary D Norton "prefers to GM"
2) Christian Dragos GMs "50/50"
3) Nefreet GMs "400/8yrs" = perhaps once per month
4) Real Alchemy does not GM at all (!)
5) The rest of you declined to state...
My situation is this. I recently DMed my first PFS Scenario, because, though I prefer playing slightly to DMing (I love both!) because of the reduced workload, I recognized that my gaming community is comprised of people that identify primarily as "Players" or as "GMs" and that those in the latter category, despite wanting to spend more time in the former category, are often thrust into such a position because nobody else steps up. I wanted to help "cover" my end by offering to DM about once every 5 games I play (to balance the 1:5 ratio of DM:Players), basically to Run for the awesome "DMs" in my community for whom DMing is, among other things, a labor of love.
And for those of you who have responded so far (except RealAlchemy...), consider this: I charge that you have "normalized" the fact that the majority of the "work" is to be carried by your shoulders! DMing is hard work (I personally prep about 2:1 or even 3:1 hours prepping:running, in addition to buying the module, in addition to bringing additional materials for running, in addition to showing up early and staying late to accommodate my players...)!
The "perspective" I offer you is as follows: Imagine getting into the mind of someone who typically identifies as a "Player", and weighs the direct opportunity costs of DMing vs. Playing. It is not balanced at all! Even if you get "free admission" as Watery Soup suggested.
Thus, my opinion is that the system of incentives, which is well within PFS's locus of control to change - especially at such an opportune time as an edition change - might behoove them to adopt a more "GM friendly" approach to incentivizing new GMs to "step up" in their respective communities, by adopting such changes as suggested in the first post:
A friendly suggestion from our local Organizer was the following:
1) You may GM a Scenario twice and obtain credit towards two different characters (rather than GM once / Play once).
2) You may GM a Scenario a third/fourth/etc time to obtain a "General Chronicle Sheet" for just XP/Gold towards different characters.
Because, I would postulate, the more new DMs the Game grows would be directly correlated with the Game's overall growth generally!
Put another way: Why are we using a 1st edition mindset to try and solve 2nd edition problems?
|
|
Your local venture agent may need incentives for people to "step up," but that's outside of the PFS's control.
In a small group you almost need 2 tables unless you want to keep playing 1-5s as new people come in and need a game to play. Taking that 1 person running to 1-2 people running is an important hurdle to get over and incentives were a HUGE help with that when I was running pfs in a small town. PFS could and (evenetually) DID help with that with the regional support package.
|
|
You will find that the campaign leadership rarely explains why they make the decisions they do other than to say its the one they feel is in the best interest of the campaign. The reason is that in almost every case, when they give their reasons it creates arguments as people dissect the info to point out flaws which are almost always based on opinion rather than fact.
Sometimes the reasoning given was more than a little odd. On this particular subject, the results only followed logically if virtually all of the new pathfinders came from conventions. There seemed to be a fair bit of resistance to the idea that a fair comparison wasn't between A game day game and a convention game but between dozens of game day games and conventions.
|
|
Nefreet GMs "400/8yrs" = perhaps once per month
Mathematically, that'd be roughly once per week ^_^
Sidenote: for Pathfinder and Starfinder we use "GM" for "GameMaster".
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?
|
|
nobody can speak to the benefits of GMing PFS2, yetI disagree. Maybe there is something to learn from long term usage, but I find the rewards system for both players and GMs in PFS(2) to be more satisfying than PFS(1). YMMV
Can you enlighten us as to what they are?
I have not GMed PFS2, yet, but that sounds like the exact sort of answer the OP is looking for.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I avoid GMing for the most part. As it so happens however, I have GMed quite a bit. That is because it is a thing that must be done.
I would identify myself as a "player". I GM because it is the social contract of playing with other "players". It is nice that I get things as rewards for GMing. But I would not dream to push for more rewards. There is a reason it is called 'volunteering'. But hey, I'm an altruist so there is my bias.
As for Gming being hard work. Yep, you are right. That is the job. *shrug*
You claim we have "normalized" some sacrifice. I would counter that you are attempting to "normalize" a greedy outlook on what should be an accepted necessary task. Do you want to get a parade in your honor every time you hold the door for someone? Should you get showered with gifts for brightening someone's day? No. You do it because it is the right thing to do for our society to run smoothly.
Also, if GMs receive even more rewards than they do now, stars (novas,glyphs) will mean significantly less than they do now. At the moment they are a moderate badge of honor, showing that you respect and appreciate Paizo and the organized play community. To add more 'incentives' will turn it into "well he got a lot of cool stuff for GMing all of those games". For me at least, 5 stars will not warrant any respect or acknowledgment.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
y situation is this. I recently DMed my first PFS Scenario
Thanks for stepping up!
People here have a LOT of games under their belt in a lot of diverse situations. The minimum for the 5 stars there is 150 run games. Bobs managed giant conventions , I ran games for years out of a pop up table wedged in between toys in a comic shop. (though My organized play these days is mostly online)
When you say "things should work out like ______" and everyone here agrees it doesn't work out like that, that conclusion comes from experimental evidence and experience across a wide variety of conditions. Experimental evidence and experience roflstomp hypothetical.
First, yes, DMing does often fall unevenly on people. For a lot of reasons, I don't think you can ever achieve the ideal gas of 1:5 you're proposing. (I didn't see that you were asking, but looking at my reported games its a bit more playing than dming but not far off 1:1)
Newguy obviously isn't going to run their first night
Some people really don't like running no matter what you do
Some people are too busy
You really don't want some people running...
Once one person has read prepped and run the scenario doing so again is easier than someone doing it the first time.
Once someone DMs a few times they're more comfortable with it, getting them over that hurdle can be important.
Now, there's three parts to any argument like this
1) We need more DMs to even out the burden (Almost always a given)
2) This idea will get more DMs
3) This idea when considering implementation, downsides, drawbacks, comes out to be such a net positive that it's worth the effort
Therefore do that idea.
For your proposal 1 is a given. I don't think anyone is going to argue the point there.
2 is Where I think it's a little weak.
By the time running the same scenario over and over is an issue a DM will have more credit than they know what to do with. In a small group you can't keep running the same non repeatable over and over: you don't have players that can play it. You want the DM to move on to a game more people can play.
At your first game, more DM credit looks like a big incentive. At 50 or 60 games more character credit is barely worth keeping track of. Every once in a while I'll track it down when I'm starting a new character and want to pass go collect 200 gp and skip first level, but thats about it.
Comparing getting 1 DM credit and 2 DM credit for the same game isn't much of an incentive.
3) You'd have to have someone make up ye olde generic chronicle. Not that hard probably but it's not inconsiderable.
You also don't want the DM running the same game over and over. You want to give different players a different experience and a chance to grow.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once one person has read prepped and run the scenario doing so again is easier than someone doing it the first time.
Thank you for mentioning that.
When I first started GMing Society I would hand draw maps on oversized grid paper using color pencils. It took a long time. People locally joke about this library map I drew where the lich's phylactery ended up being the one pink book amongst a sea of other colors.
Ain't nobody got time for that anymore.
Now I extract the map from the PDF, print it on a 1" grid at the store 2 blocks from my apartment, convert images of the NPCs and monsters into 5x7s for my standup photo frames, quickly grab the relevant minis from my 20-year collection organized in fishing tackle boxes, all in maaaybe... 30 minutes?
And I have a personal system for skimming, reading, notating and researching the scenario that took a few years to fine tune. Usually it'll take me two lunch breaks at work to do that. Also due to traffic I try to show up early to game which gives me time to mentally prepare for everything.
TL;DR - It's only a burden until it's not.
|
Venture-Captain, Washington—Seattle
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
4) Real Alchemy does not GM at all (!)
You misunderstood. RealAlchemy does GM - but not because of the rewards.
I don't GM because of chronicle sheet rewards.
----
Anecdotally, the vast majority of the GMs I know in my area (including myself) enjoy doing it for the sake of doing it - e.g. to be storytellers, creating a fun experience for others, and doing a good job of it.
The social and emotional satisfaction of competently running an effective table, shaping the experience for a bunch of people that may include complete strangers that end up being regulars coming back week after week; seeing the players kicking ass and having fun together - all that is hard to quantify but is a huge factor. That's not to say the chronicles aren't appreciated, but they are not the reason most people decide to become a GM, or the reason people stick with GMing and decide to keep getting better at it.
Other common threads I see among our GMs are: the acceptance of a social responsibility to keep our venues and gaming communities healthy, and a duty to support each other (e.g. to prevent burnout, as RealAlchemy pointed out, but also to grow as GMs).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Firstly - I've gm'd about 150 tables worth of games in a bit over 2 years, that's 1,25 credit per week. You should note that some games (modules etc) are worth more than 1 credit so that's not exactly 1.25 game sessions per week but a bit less.
My favourite scenario is dead man's debt and I've run that 4 or 5 times. I've burned one gm star replay to get another sheet for it but aside from that i haven't felt like I'd need more sheets for that particular adventure.
I admit that it's easier to run a game for the second time and it requires a lot less prep - and so it would make sense for GMs to run a game twice or thrice (and thus to reward it twice or thrice with a sheet).
Problem though is the amount of players.
Our lodge has some 10-15 active and semi-active players. If an adventure is run twice, it means that it probably cant be run again until we get a couple more new players. If an adventure has good rewards, one of the players on the first run probably wants to run it themselves ( most people seem to prefer the "play it first, then run it" method). If the same gm runs it twice, it quite literally prevents anyone else from running it again - and hinders people from stepping up to gm for which that particular sheet would have acted as an incentive.
Further, GM once/play once ensures that the GM character progresses at the same rate as player characters do. You cant apply the sheet from the same adventure twice to the same character. We run about three games per week. We could have three GMs running three rotating scenarios, resulting in everybody getting their characters to lvl 2 - or we could have all three run their own adventure three times, resulting in players getting their characters to lvl 2 and all three gms having 3 lvl 1 characters with one sheet per character.
Also, from the perspective of lodge's health, its better to run a different scenario every time (if possible) to ensure anyone can play, as opposed to running a scenario about half of the people already played.
Lastly, some scenarios are obviously easier to prep than others, and some require a lot of work - but in general, once you get the hang of it, prepping for a game isn't that bad. "Starting to GM" is more work than "keep GMing", and RSP, convention boons, and getting to assign that sheet to the specific PC that benefits from it most, are rewards enough. At least I've never felt, or heard from our Gms, the need to run the same adventure multiple times. (Our GMs also often run adventures based on the wishes of other GMs - "hey, can you that pirate arc from season 1 and 10?" "Sure, would you run the jormundur arc?" Which also acts as a reward/incentive).
The only times we've had a GM run an adventure for the second time are those when we need a game Quick (because of some one cancelling or we have more players than anticipated) and then we either run an evergreen, or if it's not an evergreen and the gm runs it for thr second time, the GM is always one of the regulars and the sheet isn't the motivation.
I'm not saying that allowing 2 or 3 sheets would be Bad, but I think the current system is well balanced. Even if you run the same adventure twice, there are other perks you gain for it.
|
|
I started society play about 2.5 years ago, and starting predominatly GMing about 1.5 years ago -- but was a GM & player in home games for decades before that. I generally prefer to play in home games, and GM in society games. I had a number of bad party experiences in my early lodge and convention games that make me not like to bring characters I care about to groups outside my usual venue. Pretty sure it was just bad luck/low sample size, but the bad memories stick with me.
In terms of GM credits/rewards its felt about right to me. The GM Boons from convention play haven't been that enticing to me though -- maybe because I'm not playing enough to need them. And I second/third/etc the comment that after enough games you sorta stop caring about the chronicles at all. For PFS1/SFS, I'm at the point where I just put a random character number down for myself when reporting, since I haven't really kept track of how I even want some of those GM blobs to evolve and I haven't seen a chronicle I want to put on a real character (and take away a play opportunity).
For PFS2, I'm still carefully tracking all of them, mainly because I had a number of character concepts that don't feel 'complete' until level 2/4, so getting them all built up has been a goal. (The main two are my Fighter/MC Wizard and my Sorcerer/MC Champ, to compare and contrast how they evolves and play). But as they're all getting close to 'play-ready' I'm not really sure what my next plan is for GM credit. I'll have three characters I'm excited to play at 2,4,5. I'd like to start up a caster towards all the Magaambyan archetypes, but need to wait to see when/if its sanctioned before I start dumping credits on that character. I've actually been happy that I've had a LOT of repeat scenarios at Cons and haven't had to worry about credit (something like 9 running of 1-00 and 5-6 of 1-03... counting all non-repeatable repeats probably 1/2 my tables are repeated which helps to ease chronicle management as you don't get them :) ) I'm currently running three sessions for the lodge a month, plus trying to get to one convention per month (need suggestions for March/April, preferably East Coast-ish), so I know non-credit repeats are just a factor of life.
I am looking forward to the ACP system, I have ~300+ ACP already by my own calculation and I enjoyed the PTP options (level 3, level 2, and ramlock's tower). It'll be nice to start having things to spend on, and nice to start having high cost things to save for.
Finally, one of my biggest reasons for GMing -- I have a ton of 'toys' (minis and terrain) that I love to use. Sadly I feel most PFS/PFS2 scenarios are not written in ways that encourage the terrain's use. It is the first thing I look for in every new scenario and I have high hopes for one of December's that I haven't had a chance to look at yet.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I started GMing I felt the same way as rainzax (what bothered me more was tables not mustering after I did all the prep work — that'll really destroy a new GM's motivation).
Like others have mentioned, I usually don't even take PF1 credit anymore; this is probably common among VOs and others who enjoy GMing. However, I don't expect this argument to be persuasive unless you enjoy GMing in the first place.
Race boons were an incentive in PFS1
Those boons provided instant gratification towards a goal. I know for a fact they helped incentivize GMs who might not have otherwise run a scenario twice. Digital currency (ACP) is a nice idea, but ticking off boxes on a physical sheet of paper is very compelling.
Regardless, some sort of working reward/star system would sure be nice and I hope they roll it out soon. Like many areas we have lots of new PF2 GMs coming aboard; I want them to fully understand the benefits they get from GMing, and to have the opportunity to make progress toward their own goals. At the very least they should be able to see progress toward their first glyph.
When I first started GMing Society I would hand draw maps on oversized grid paper using color pencils. It took a long time. People locally joke about this library map I drew where the lich's phylactery ended up being the one pink book amongst a sea of other colors.
I still try to do this for special scenarios, ones I enjoy, or commonly-used maps. But once you start GMing once a week, it definitely becomes impossible to find the time!
Do you want to get a parade in your honor every time you hold the door for someone? Should you get showered with gifts for brightening someone's day?
Hyperbole. There is absolutely nothing wrong with people wanting to be rewarded for their hard work. You should at least try to have a mature dialogue — especially with someone whose speaking their mind about a somewhat common concern for new GMs. Or, you know… don't post in the first place because this is the kind of attitude that turns people off from organized play.
I charge that you have "normalized" the fact that the majority of the "work" is to be carried by your shoulders!
This is a valuable thought for community building. Note that Venture-Officers sometimes approach players in private about stepping up to GM, and offer their mentorship and support; there are often efforts going on behind the scenes that players don't see.
Here in SF, we're also organizing a "GM 101" day on Feb 1, in the hopes of empowering more GMs.
That said, not everyone is comfortable or able to GM. While many VOs also happen to enjoy GMing and do extra work, communities always need more good GMs such as yourself — whether they're motivated by altruism or rewards doesn't really matter. Otherwise, PFS dies.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Illinois—Fairview Heights
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I ran games for years out of a pop up table wedged in between toys in a comic shop.
I'm waxing nostalgic for the days I used to run games out of the basement storage room in a used book store.
I'll relate my SFS experience as it matches with PFS1 and likely will with PFS2 as time goes on.
I currently have 13 characters in SFS. Among those are characters in every tier range. Some of those characters were built mainly to place credit from replayable scenarios. But also, to make sure that I can always have a character to play at any table (and sometimes have options based on table makeup and scenario theme).
I struggle to keep enough characters in the lower level ranges because 1) There is a larger number of low level scenarios and 2) With both Player and GM credit, my characters tend to level quickly.
As others have noted, once you start accumulating GM chronicles, it becomes difficult to manage distribution of those chronicles and maintain enough characters to support receiving all of those chronicles, to the point that sometimes GMs don't even take them even when available. As I already feel that my character pool is diluted, I would not want to add more chronicles to the mix.
There may be others that feel differently, but from my own experience, the current system has struck the right balance with GM rewards. Locally, we actually tend to have more GMs than needed for the player base. We struggle to ensure our GMs have enough "GM" time vice playing time.
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
RealAlchemy, I apologize for mis-representing your contributions. Sincere.
...
Another round of super thoughtful responses, thank you. But I feel as though some of these are missing my point. Let me explain by contending with some of the responses that seem to miss the mark, before circling back around.
1) I am a long time DM (of home games), and thus understand and agree with the idea that DMing is in and of itself a great joy for reasons logsig mentioned (creating joyful experiences for other people, etc). I would further agree that once you get "the hang of it" the amount of prep work - perhaps anxiety too - drops significantly. Agreed there. 30 minutes is an extreme (Nefreet!), but the point stands.
2) As for wanting a "parade in your honor" (thanks for hyperbolizing my point Saashaa!), I think that acknowledging that DMing is doing the most necessary work to sustain a community - hyperbole aside, it truly is a "sacrifice" of time / money / energy to elevate an experience for others - and this is important for a Society model to convey.
3) As for the list of people BigNorseWolf mentioned for whom DMing is impractical (the "Newguy", the "Reluctant", the "Too-Busy", and "That Guy"), I think shaping an incentive system for them specifically is the wrong move, and that instead, one that works for most people will be able to hold them too.
All this, you may ask "well then who is the target audience?" and that is the right question - and the reason I challenge you all to think outside of the 1st edition mindset:
2nd edition, at least where I live, is bringing people over to the game who, for whatever reason, did not play 1st edition. These folks are coming "out of the woodworks" as it were from both gaming and non-gaming backgrounds: some are new to Pathfinder, some are new to Tabletop, some want to "make the leap" from watching people game on internet channels to doing it themselves!
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that 2nd edition is structurally designed to be easier to run in a myriad of ways. This is not the thread to discuss whether this is true or not, but if you can agree with me on that basic principle more-or-less, perhaps you can also reconsider my point.
So why are these new folks my target audience?
Because, I would argue that many of them essentially share the same or similar general perspective Saashaa shared above: that they would be willing to DM their "fair share" to sustain the community they are becoming a part of. The problem is that weighing the incentives of Playing vs DMing is unbalanced, and I would argue, just enough to act as a deterrent when considered in conjunction with the rest of the hurdles (mental, time, money, etc) of stepping up to DM.
In fact, to counter the claim that this thread is held together by theoreticals (thanks BigNorseWolf!), I would offer up your respective gaming communities (your experiences, your evidence) as proof to my point that the incentive system is not growth oriented. Consider the following questions:
Q) Do folks in your area identify primarily as "Player" or "DM" rather than more "both"?
Q) Do folks who DM typically do so out of a lack of other folks stepping up?
Q) Is your game community following a pattern of growth or decay?
And finally:
Q) Do you think a change in the incentive systems would impact any of the three previous questions?
Respectfully, cheers.
|
|
For your questions:
1) Complete guessing (based on feel, not warhorn analysis), maybe about half to 2/3rds are predominately 'player only'. Of the remaining 1/3 you see about an equal split between GM a couple times a year, and the multiple-times a month crowd.
2) Outside of freak circumstances we're not hunting for GMs for given slots. I felt I had a hard time 'breaking in' the to GM scene in my lodge because we didn't have a lot of games scheduled on days that my schedule was predictably free. Once we spun up a new venue on a new day of the week that I can routinely plan on, that made it easier for me.
3) Our PFS2 scene is growing. Not plugged in to our SFS/PFS1 scene enough anymore, but from warhorn it looks like PFS1 is still vibrant. SFS looks a little down.
4) Extra chronicles/replays for GM -- no, I would not expect that to move the needle at all. It might in a very short blip, but not lasting. ACPs once out/combined with sanctioning of Lost Omen's stuff, might -- but that's not a _change_ just a delayed roll out. I would expect the 'player focused' people 'grind' enough ACPs for a ancestry/class option that they really care about. Their GMing would probably come in bursts when they want to unlock a new option/when an old character is semi-retired/dead.
|
|
Q) Do you think a change in the incentive systems would impact any of the three previous questions?
The question should be narrower than that. For your proposal you're not suggesting a generic " change in the incentive system" you're proposing "this very specific change". With regards to that specific change
really, if you're dming that much after a while the credit is more or less superfluous
We have some very experienced GMs in our lodge. Most stop getting a GM chronicle around 40 games in.
Like others have mentioned, I usually don't even take PF1 credit anymore
As others have noted, once you start accumulating GM chronicles, it becomes difficult to manage distribution of those chronicles and maintain enough characters to support receiving all of those chronicles, to the point that sometimes GMs don't even take them even when available.
...we do not get this kind of agreement on ANYTHING around here. Christmas miracle perhaps? :)
In fact, to counter the claim that this thread is held together by theoreticals (thanks BigNorseWolf!), I would offer up your respective gaming communities (your experiences, your evidence) as proof to my point that the incentive system is not growth oriented. Consider the following questions:
The theoretical here is that the perfect gas of everyone having 1:5 dming to gaming and a growing group is achievable and that this this change would help get it.
I am absolutely not shy about asking for what I feel is an improvement to the system (or doing something myself if it's possible ala the game finder or newbie pamphlets) I just don't think your proposal would do anything to move the needle, much less achieve what you're saying it would here.
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
BigNorseWolf,
Again the hyperbole! I am not positing some magical ratio (1:5) that will save PFS - I'd appreciate if you'd consider my ideas in a realistic over a fantastical sense.
So let me rephrase:
I think that some change to the system of incentives - such as those posited in the title and opening post - could serve to Grow Out the folks who are newly entering organized play to Balance an unbalanced Player-DM dynamic.
And the target audience is not so much you and regular posters here - it's newer folks (potential new DMs).
Finally, I think this is an opportune time to have this conversation (edition change).
Cheers.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Illinois—Fairview Heights
|
Q) Do folks in your area identify primarily as "Player" or "DM" rather than more "both"?
We have about 75% who are Players and have no interest in being a GM.
There are another 20% who are GMs. These are folks who GM at least once a month and will GM if the chance is offered.
The last 5% are what I would call GM by condition, meaning that they GM because either there is no content that they can play or on a rare occasion that we have more players show up than expected and we need to offer an additional table. (This is what I would call reluctant GMs).
Q) Do folks who DM typically do so out of a lack of other folks stepping up?
No, we tend to have more willing GMs than tables.
Q) Is your game community following a pattern of growth or decay?
PFS1 - Steady: Drop offs occurred shortly after PF2 announcement and after PF2 release, but there is a core group still playing PFS1.
PFS2 - Growth: We have expanded into two new venues since the release and returned to an old venue that we had stopped offering games at a few years ago.SFS2 - Growth: It is strong, we saw a bit of a decline after the first year, but recent numbers and an influx of new players have us at or slightly above our number of players we saw during it's first year.
And finally:Q) Do you think a change in the incentive systems would impact any of the three previous questions?
There are really two questions here. Based on the OP of additional chronicles as GM incentive, honestly not really. That may help with the 5% we have who are reluctant GMs. There hasn't been an issue of finding new GMs with the current program. The Second Question: Would additional incentives not suggested here help encourage GMs? Maybe, but at least in our area, that hasn't seemed necessary.
I've been GMing a lot of starfinder in an effort to get access to a particular regional race boon (4 games away!) And that has been such an incentive that I've almost taken over running for the whole group to the point where our previous starfinder GM asked if he minded me running, which blew my mind a bit lol. It's certainly been fun running and I'll likely continue to do so after I get my uplifted bear, but I am very curious as to what other boons they will offer, as if the next is also a race boon but the race isnt very appealing, I doubt ill be as gung-ho to run (though i still hacve Skittermanders to work towards)
also, I am a one nova GM, any idea why I dont have my little symbol next to my name?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A. There are players, and there are "both". SFS is in minority and we have two people who GM that, so even they get to play/gm roughly 50/50. In pfs2 we have one dedicated GM but we also have less players than pfs1 - se identifies as "both", probably because she still actively plays pfs1.
B. A mix of "yes, because someone needs to" but also because our GMs generally seem to like GMing.
C. This one is difficult. Its sorta stable, but that's because we keep losing old players and gaining new every now and then.
D. I don't think so.
Your proposal would help IF we somehow were in a situation where:
1. Our GM has already run all the scenarios
2. We still have people who haven't played all of the scenarios
3. Nobody else wants to step up to GM.
4. We've already played the repeatables a few times
Paizo publishes currently 3 adventures per month for 2e. We run 2-3 2e games per month. We haven't yet run out of content. Our player pool is a bit small - it'll be hard to scrape up a second table for a scenario. It would be easier if someone else GMs and the old gm becomes one of the players.
Basically, I see your suggestion necessary in an environment where a gm has already run all the games but new people keep coming to the lodge, and even then a replayable will do the job.
Further, when we do get new people to step up and gm, I want to encourage them to run Different scenarios. Not the same one again and again. That'll help them learn different things about GMing, and makes sure our players can actually play (instead of dropping out because they've already played it).
Thknm of it this way: everybody gets to play each and every scenario (eventually) but only 2 or max 3 people get to gm any single scenario. Why would our lodge want to encourage the same person to run the same scenario again?
In fact, why would you want to run the same scenario again? Or thrice? You'd have three characters with 1 chronicle vs one character with 3 chronicles?
If it's the cost of the scenario, ask your local game store where you run the games to register with paizo and they'll get the scenarios for free, and in my experience are happy yo pronto them up because it promotes their sales by bringing people to the store.
I honestly want to know your situation in which you find yourself if you want the same person to gm a game several times.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that some change to the system of incentives - such as those posited in the title and opening post - could serve to Grow Out the folks who are newly entering organized play to Balance an unbalanced Player-DM dynamic.
And the target audience is not so much you and regular posters here - it's newer folks (potential new DMs).
Your specific proposal does not grow or balance the GM pool. It rewards being a repeat GM, running the same scenario over and over.
You would need 1 GM for every 11 player to trigger the second GM chronicle (You play with 3 others with someone else GMing, then you GM for 4 other people, and then GM for 4 other completely new people). However, that is also GM A runs for 6 players (including GM B), then GM B runs for 5 players (including GM A). So for GM A to earn a second GM chronicle, you'd have to say, "No, you can't GM because I want another Chronicle from Scenario X," to GM C (or a hypothetical new GM).
The proposal actually risks pushing out new GMs in favor of GMs who want to build their GM blobs. It certainly does nothing for the player who tries his hand at GMing. He gets what GMs always get: that one GM chronicle.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are two kinds of GM incentives that matter. One is what Paizo provides. This is a careful balance for the entire campaign, based on millions of games and the input from thousands of GMs and event organizers. They’ve tried some things that worked, and some that maybe didn’t.
The second type is what your local organizer does for you. We have locations that provide store credit for GMing, we’ve had organizers who buy scenarios for new GMs, as well as the shared network of maps/handouts mentioned above. This kind of incentive is much easier to customize to a local group without messing up the entire campaign.
Personally, I feel that you don’t want GM incentives to be “better” than playing, because you don’t want someone doing it just for the incentive. But then, I am in an area where we have some great GMs, and more than enough to usually make things work.
Given the issues facing Organized Play right now, with four OP systems and not enough resources to go around, changing something like GM rewards (which would be a BIG change) doesn’t seem like the highest priority right now.
So, how to help the OP? They need more people to GM. Here are some thoughts:
1. Talk to the local Venture-Officers and see what they can do. I e given GMs some of the many boons I’ll never use if it helps me get someone to run at an event. I also gave out gold stars as GMs earned their stars ( gotta get back to this!) when something cool comes out, I will run a private table for GMs.
2. See what the locations can do. If you’re at a game store, make sure they know about the retail incentive program. See what they offer other GMs for say D&D.
3. Make a shared library of maps and minis for your GMs.
Gotta run to a holiday event, so I’ll try and circle back later. But thanks for raising the issue so politely, and genuinely looking for ways to improve your community. Sounds like you should talk to someone about becoming a Venture-Officer yourself.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Q) Do folks in your area identify primarily as "Player" or "DM" rather than more "both"?
I think we have about 25% pure players, 25% people who mostly play but occasionally GM, 45% people who GM frequently and 5% people who mostly GM.
When I say "frequently GM" I'm not saying that they're GMing half the time. Given that you need 3 players at minimum to every GM, you can't actually have everyone GMing half the time.
Q) Do folks who DM typically do so out of a lack of other folks stepping up?
No. Some GMs are vanguards in specific things though; I've been leading the way in getting PFS2 going and another one runs a lot of SFS.
Q) Is your game community following a pattern of growth or decay?
Growth, now that PFS2 is finally here. PFS2 has attracted new players. Previously the announced end of PF1 had caused a gradual loss of players but right now we're growing again.
And finally:Q) Do you think a change in the incentive systems would impact any of the three previous questions?
Well, the previous three questions were already answered with "things are going well". So there's no obvious need to increase the incentives.
The one you propose though - GMs getting credit for running the same scenario again and again - would be a really really BAD one though. 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.
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
Blake's Tiger (and friends),
Gotta say I like your style - taking my own premise and trying to turn it into it's own counterpoint - well played!
For the sake of argument though, consider the following mindset:
New player steps up to DM, tries out a scenario. That is, purchases it, puts in the prep work (significant at this stage), and pushes through the anxiety of stepping into the (demanding) role of DMing for people who, in all likelihood, have greater experience than they...
...well, I believe a logical next thought would be to (and this is where I disagree with you here, Blake's Tiger) run that same scenario again!
Why?
Because you have already put in the time, money, and effort, and now have the additional feedback of a prior run through to draw upon, that you can focus on the actual running of the scenario again; all the DM moves that happen during the actual session.
I actually think this would have great appeal for potential New DMs - those in Keith Boyer's 75% (the "Only Players") and 5% (the "Reluctant DMs") respectively. And maybe I'm wrong about that - more of a gut feeling. But that is my opinion, from my perspective as a relative "newcomer" to Society play.
And besides, just as great Dancers could benefit from learning both "roles" (Lead and Follow) even if they have a preferred or favorite, so too could many Gamers benefit from learning both "roles" (DM and Player), with the added value of supporting their gaming community generally by a willingness to put in more of the "work" of sustaining and growing that community.
In short, I think it's worth a look into - especially timely because of the transition - even if you understand that a potential benefit wouldn't impact you directly (posters here "throwing away surplus chron sheets" lol), but instead potentially impact people who are considering breaking into the Organized Play model of the hobby.
Sometimes all it takes is a few well-placed tweaks to enact a qualifiable shift. If you can agree to that, then the question becomes "well what exactly are those tweaks?"
Cheers.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
Also, if we're talking about growth, at least locally problem isn't the lack of gms, but the lack of players. We can always fill one table, but I'd like if we could fill another table. That means we need to advertise and spread the word to find new players. Getting gms isn't the problem.
Speaking of gms, problem isn't getting them to run their second game, its getting them to run their first game (and even that isn't a real problem, regular players are often willing to take up gming if you just ask). They may at first be unsure, but often they've played a scenario which they felt like they might want to run.
I'm not sure what is the problem that a second gm sheet would fix.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Illinois—Fairview Heights
|
run that same scenario again
I think we may be getting to a rarified condition. It is not the GM that dictates the scenarios played, it is the players. The real restriction is players who are eligible to play a scenario, not the GM offering a scenario.
We may offer a scenario once at a location (and then again months later if there is enough demand). While it is "possible" that the same GM will travel to one of our other locations and run the same scenario, it is rare that any of our players (or GMs for that matter) go to more than one of our locations, let alone two. This leaves the example condition, in serious want of players to play that second and third session of the same scenario. I'm not saying it isn't possible, it is just rare under normal conditions. That and in all likelihood, in order to keep all the other GMs happy, you need to make sure they get a chance to GM the same scenario, again, the limitation is eligible players, not GMs.
I think working through ideas is important to keeping organized play active and thriving. The scenario you have suggested however would have a negative effect on our GM pool. To make the single GM happy, we would have to upset the rest of our GMs to somehow manage to allow one GM to run the same scenario multiple times (if that GM was willing to show up at all the venues offering that scenario in the first place) which is a bit of a stretch.
The question was asked previously: What is the situation which may dictate such a need? I haven't seen anything that would in years of organized play, but I am open to knowing of an environment where such incentives might be necessary. Could you provide more backstory that lends itself to such a need?
|
Contributor
|
| 3 people 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.
|
Venture-Agent, Maine–Midcoast
|
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.
That said, it just seems arbitrary to me that the only way to credit a scenario twice is to play both "roles" exactly once; and that running a scenario a third time for credit (just XP/Gold) is also similarly limited.
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!
But yeah, perhaps I'm in the minority then, and that's all well and good.
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.