|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Contrarily, if it takes longer for me to get to a 'local' store than it does to get to a hotel for a further away convention, and back, that should be a consideration, imo.
The concern about the table being rescheduled on a day when the original GM is not available is the salt in the wound -- if that GM had carefully arranged their schedule to be off of their other *paying* job on a non-firing day, that's a double loss -- both in ability to earn income AND scarce 'free days'.
Some of us work in retail and can't just 'show up' at the drop of a text or phone call.
Yet we're trying to make do the best we can.
I'm deeply grateful to Gary for starting this thread, because it's one of the sticking points organizers will run into with veteran GMs who have been burnt by 'bad apples' (over-organizers, etc) in that past.
Namely that "If I GM PF1, it's a reasonably probable expectation NOW that I'll get a Boon if I do my work and show up and time ready to run. If I GM PF2, and I show up, and I got f'd by the organizer, I get jack shit for my effort AND I get to sit on my thumb for four hours in a worst case situation."
Organizers who can take care of their GMs will get loyalty in return when their GMs can help them out.
Organizers that do unwholesome things to their GMs will get a lack of loyalty and support.
One of those builds the community, one of those destroys the community.
|
I think losing out on 1 game that you drove to a store for is a bit different than losing out in 3 games you flew/slept on a hotel floor for.
What if I only lost out of 1 of those 3 tables, the other two fired, and I got to play in the slot that didn't fire?
What if I don't need to fly/sleep on a hotel floor to attend the convention?
The premise of this suggestion was that it was the work of preparing the scenario that was worthy of reward, not how hard or easy it is for you to physically get to the venue.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think losing out on 1 game that you drove to a store for is a bit different than losing out in 3 games you flew/slept on a hotel floor for.What if I only lost out of 1 of those 3 tables, the other two fired, and I got to play in the slot that didn't fire?
What if I don't need to fly/sleep on a hotel floor to attend the convention?
The premise of this suggestion was that it was the work of preparing the scenario that was worthy of reward, not how hard or easy it is for you to physically get to the venue.
Not the way you're doing it.
The premise is on average a convention game is more work/difficulty in getting to it so it might warrant different rules.
What you're arguing is that a policy has to perfectly cover every single corner case or its flawed and thus shouldn't be implemented. I don't think that's really relevant or productive. The evaluation should be done on a basis of whether the policy generally increases fairness rather than how it covers every single individual.
|
|
What you're arguing is that a policy has to perfectly cover every single corner case or its flawed and thus shouldn't be implemented.
No, I am presenting variations on a theme or alternative perspectives. And I am not saying that the system needs to cover every single corner case (and I don't believe that I've even touched on a 'corner case' when it come to tables falling through, but I don't have the time or inclination to explain to you how usual and frequent those situations are). I'm not even saying whether or not there should be a system.
I'm pushing at people's opinions to discuss and define what is the system, what is fair, what is being rewarded.
Just because I question your opinion doesn't mean I'm being non-productive.
Is the effort of getting to a convention what we're rewarding? Is it significantly more onerous on average to get to a convention? For GenCon, PaizoCon, Origins, yes. For people who live nowhere near a city that holds a convention and decide to go to a convention, yes. For some of the non-US regions, yes. But of all the conventions held, do most GMs fly or otherwise extend themselves to attend the convention, or do most conventions pull GMs from local sources? So that particular argument doesn't hold water for me. It may be that giving control of rewarding GMs with folded tables to convention organizers is the best way to keep it from being abused, but that's a logistics issue and not a value judgement.
Or is it the hours of effort of preparing a scenario that never happens what we're rewarding, as other people who are not me suggest up-thread?
Venture-Agent, Minnesota
|
BNW has summed it up neatly.
We reward conventions with more AcP and other boons because they hard to staff and generally are harder to recruit GMs for. I really think that if we're going to offer AcP for tables that didn't fire, it would only be fairly done for conventions. I'm even okay if the AcP granted to a GM of a failed table would be EXACTLY the same as the AcP earned by a player whose table fired. There would be at least some consolation for all that work.
Conventions are recruiting grounds. They have all sorts of other options to entice an attendee. When I go to GenCon, I see NOTHING but the demo hall or the Sagamore. I am giving my entire convention over to volunteering.
|
|
it significantly more onerous on average to get to a convention? For GenCon, PaizoCon, Origins, yes. For people who live nowhere near a city that holds a convention and decide to go to a convention, yes. For some of the non-US regions, yes. But of all the conventions held, do most GMs fly or otherwise extend themselves to attend the convention, or do most conventions pull GMs from local sources?
That isn't an or question. And insisting that it be evaluated as such is why I don't think it can go anywhere.
While you will have some DMs that can roll out of bed and land in the convention center, you'll have some local DMs that need to drive for a longer than they normally would, because there's local and there's 9 am local. some staying in hotels because the drive there back there back there back shouldn't be done at midnight and 6 am. You'll have some DMs flying in/driving a long way in who are also staying at hotels. You can either try to parse them out individually, or recognize that on average from most dms there's more to being at a con than at a gameday.
You're also enticing some of those DMs to step in or fill up by making that long trip.
It's not about rewarding individual effort accurately down to the last person it's about a policy that puts a little more omph where it's needed to cover something that is generally true.
There's a number of other factors involved here too
More oversight from a higher level up venture critter to make the call
More randomness in planning/schedeling a con than a game day
Harder to get everyone together to come up with an alternate solution at a con.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Contrarily, if it takes longer for me to get to a 'local' store than it does to get to a hotel for a further away convention, and back, that should be a consideration, imo.
No, I don't think so.
There's a level of detail to which you can reasonably take a policy, but not beyond.
Most of the time, conventions require a bigger "investment" to go GM there. Compared to game days, a con will usually last multiple days, have a bit higher entry fees, and the stakes for making sure a GM shows up are higher, because you didn't want anyone else who shower up to miss out because a GM went missing. Also, you're GMing in front of fewer people you already know, which is at least for a significant amount of gamers, something that makes it just a bit harder.
That doesn't mean there can't be a game day that doesn't have any of those traits. For example, before the lockdown, I had a game day in the west of the Netherlands, which would be visited by a player from Germany because it was relatively close for him, but still several hours travel to, and fro. But it only takes me a quick 15m train ride to get there.
Suppose the game day falls through. Should either of us get AcP? The same amount?
That's way too detailed to regulate with some centralized system. You run into all kinds of scale problems. What's considered far travel by a lodge in one large city with multiple stores on the US West Coast would be quite different from that for someone in wide open Australia.
|
|
More oversight
I find that a more important consideration for limiting it to conventions than
a convention game is more work/difficulty in getting to it so it might warrant different rules
because as Lau said
You run into all kinds of scale problems. What's considered far travel by a lodge in one large city with multiple stores on the US West Coast would be quite different from that for someone in wide open Australia.
This is also a reasonable argument in my opinion, though I know some disagree
We reward conventions with more AcP and other boons because they hard to staff and generally are harder to recruit GMs for.
and this
because you didn't want anyone else who shower [sic] up to miss out because a GM went missing.
In summary, what I got from answers to follow-up questions is the cost to the system is greater when a GM fails to show at a convention (people who paid money to enter and maybe yet more money to sit at a table lose out on that if the GM fails to show resulting in a bad opinion of PFS or Paizo by association). The new AcP system endangers alienating GMs because the expected incentive isn't there when the GM has past experience with tables folding or is deincentivized if his first foray results in one or more tables folding. Rewarding convention GMs for folded tables counteracts that effect, preserving the original purpose of the GM boons of PFS1: incentivize convention GMs.
I recognize that the relative value of the incentive has been reduced compared to what it was, so running local games can be more profitable as was mentioned up-thread, but that horse left the barn a long time ago.
|
|
Departing from the who to the what...
What could the reward be if not AcP.
A paper conciliation boon? It could be a paper version of a 10 AcP boon, should any exist.
Alternatively, something unique. A wayfinder? But those are easy to get: 2 PtPs or 2 Fame. What about a unique wayfinder? It could change with the campaign season.
Wayfinder of the Eager Helper: Year of the Open Road.
A wayfinder constructed inside a polished and lacquered rosewood case. The symbol of the Path of the Open Road is carved upon the lid.
As a standard wayfinder, but once per day you can activate it to cast longstrider.
Activate Single Action command; Effect The wayfinder is targeted by a 1st-level know direction spell.
---
That requires an undefined amount of developer/creative effort each year but potentially a lot less IT effort adjusting a tech solution already fraught with development problems. Potentially.
|
Premier Event Coordinator
|
If we try to incorporate the investment outside of the table prep, we are going to go round and round about all sorts of itemization. I think we are chasing our tails. Non-firing credit should be limited to the area of game prep. How long it takes to walk, ride, drive, fly, teleport, etc to the event, who stays at home, who stays at La Quinta, who ate at McDonalds vs who ate at Outback, who saved money because they switched to Geico, etc. the list of variables can get exhausting and to be honest, is not the concern. There are always opportunity costs to participation. We are merely talking about a little compensation for the prep investment.
I agree with the idea that in many cases, simply rescheduling the table is compensation enough. Let’s not pretend there is much to do the second time around if your table in April doesn’t fire (cause, IMO is irrelevant) and it fires in May or June.
And I am not in favor of “rewarding” a player for a table not making. I’m sorry, sometimes the table doesn’t make. Of course this is a philosophical idea and I’m sure some people will want to be compensated for their pencil breaking or the rest room was out of toilet tissue.
If we decide that AcP is the universal reward tool and we want to throw a “sorry, and thanks for all the fish” appreciate the effort reward to a GM for a canceled table, I guess I’m not opposed. I think we keep it simple and just give a flat one point regardless of the venue, frequency, etc. There needs to be specific qualification guidelines, and the RVC needs an override/oversight power, that if they recognize an organizer is intentionally scheduling empty tables in order to manipulate the system, they can shut that garbage down.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The RVC needs an override/oversight power, that if they recognize an organizer is intentionally scheduling empty tables in order to manipulate the system, they can shut that garbage down.
They could just trust the organizer initially, and allow them a small pool of discretionary AP to hand out. This would need to be accounted for on the after-action report. Anyone who abused the system would forfeit that privilege.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are two ways to handle additional ACP for conventions: "self-serve" (the organizer does it) and "back-office" (the OPF does it). The back-office solution is probably the best one for keeping things honest. We all know how overworked the OPF already is so I don't know that a back-office solution would even be an option, but here's how I would implement it:
1. Add fields to the After-Action Report that a convention organizer fills out for giving additional ACP. The fields would include:
-a. Player PFS Number
-b. Total number of additional ACP.
-c. Reason (drop-down field with choices like "table(s) did not make")
2. OPF gets the after-action report and does the required thing to make the additional ACP show up on the players' accounts. (Ideally this would just be clicking an "Approve Additional ACP" button, but that certainly wouldn't be implemented initially. Even long term the method would probably involve cutting and pasting the PFS number and Additional ACP columns from the After-Action spreadsheet to Paizo's database).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My concrete suggestion is that convention GMs should get a flat 5 ACP for each table that doesn't make.
I arrived at that number by assuming that time has value (which we are doing here). So the GMs can do something else if their table doesn't make. Go to another part of the convention, or play at a table that does make (earning ACP for that play as well, which would bring their total up to the 10 they would have earned as a GM). There's an argument to be made that the GMs should get 6 at Premier Plus conventions, but I prefer the simplest implementation possible.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Yeah I think the best approach would be to let the organizer allocate a pool of AcP in the after-action report. That way, accountability is built in, but the system stays flexible enough.
One organizer might for example run a big multitable special with a couple of runners. Good ways to reward runners and overseers has been a stumbling block in the past. Discretionary AcP could be handy for it.
Doing it through the AAR also forces organizers to question themselves. If you find yourself giving out a very large amount of AcP because a lot of tables didn't fire, you're going to have to explain why that is and what steps you're taking to improve the reliability of your planning next time.
|
|
The current AcP system appears to be being designed under this rough equation:
Participation Type (1 = Player, 2 = GM) x Scenario Type (1 = Quest, 4 = Scenario, 12 = AP) x Venue Modifier (1 = Regular, 1.25 = Premium, 1.5 = Premium Plus)
There isn't a free form/free text are in there where any agent can write in whatever number of AcP they want (e.g. 15 for 3 tables not fired with 5 AcPs each or 1, 3, 7, etc).
At best there exists an event titled "Convention Table Did Not Make" (or 2 events: "Premium Table Did Not Make" and "Premium Plus Table Did Not Make") and both a Quest and a Scenario called "Tables Did Not Make" that awards 1 or 4 points. Then the responsible agent (OPF, VC, convention organizer, etc) enters a report for the type of table that folded--Quest or Scenario--with the GM(s) as the player and some set dummy GM PFS number who will be accruing a whole lot of AcPs (but that doesn't matter, it's not a real person) (EDIT: unless you use the GM as the GM and then you can't batch multiple GMs with folded tables). If a GM missed more than one table, each additional table folded would be entered separately.
Ideally, this isn't something that would happen often but...
Now scale that up to GenCon.
Requiring the ability to give a variable number of AcPs to an individual ad hoc would likely require starting over from scratch.
So the award per table would need to be an existing number in the system: 1, 1.25, 1.5, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 18. GMs with folded tables could be batched together 6 at a time. Each table beyond 1 for an individual GM would require an additional report.
|
Premier Event Coordinator
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My concrete suggestion is that convention GMs should get a flat 5 ACP for each table that doesn't make.
I don’t think the value of a cancelled table should be based in the venue. All “dead” tables should have the same value and I would prefer it be closer to a 1-2 value. No more than half the minimum for a completed public table. A GM at Gen Con who’s table doesn’t fire should not get more AcP than a GM who actually runs a table at their local GameDay.
The AcP system is already arguably too complicated for its own good. Variable awards based on venue, adventure type. Almost makes me wish we just did something simple. Play a game, get a point, GM a game, get two points. Period, end of line. No what ifs matter. Did you run the game? Yes. Have two points. Did you play the game? Yes. Have one point. Anything other than those two scenarios is no, sorry, no points. Move along.
Venture-Captain, Australia—NSW—Greater West
|
I, personally have no horse in this race, we very rarely have non-firing tables at our conventions, we are more likely to have the opposite problem, when GMs pull out at the last minute, for whatever reason.
But something to consider - if we are giving out AcP for non-firing tables, we also should be taking into account the fact that the GM of that table might then play...I don't think it is fair for them to get more AcP that their fellow GMs, as there is a potential option for double dipping into the AcP pool.
|
|
My concrete suggestion is that convention GMs should get a flat 5 ACP for each table that doesn't make.I don’t think the value of a cancelled table should be based in the venue. All “dead” tables should have the same value and I would prefer it be closer to a 1-2 value. No more than half the minimum for a completed public table. A GM at Gen Con who’s table doesn’t fire should not get more AcP than a GM who actually runs a table at their local GameDay.
A GM who runs a table at their local game day gets 8 ACP.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My personal opinions based on all the (relevant) posts so far:
1. Convention GMs should get ACP for tables that do not make. The investment of time, money, and particularly opportunity cost is quite high when your table does not make.
2. Regular games should not. Cheating would be inevitable (though likely small in relative terms) with no way to audit/catch such cheaters.
3. The ACP value for non-firing tables should be fixed regardless of convention size - simply because it makes implementation easier.
4. I suggest a value of “5.” That’s half of what one would get for GMing a typical convention. This is a modest consolation for not getting to GM and ensures that even if the GM gets into another game, their total ACP will not exceed what they would have gotten if the table had made.
5. Non-making table ACP should be awarded as part of the After Action Report the convention organizer is required to file. This step makes the organizer accountable and auditable by the RVC and OPF.
Is it doable? I don’t know. Is it a reasonable request? I think so, and that’s how I would implement it.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
My concrete suggestion is that convention GMs should get a flat 5 ACP for each table that doesn't make.I don’t think the value of a cancelled table should be based in the venue. All “dead” tables should have the same value and I would prefer it be closer to a 1-2 value. No more than half the minimum for a completed public table. A GM at Gen Con who’s table doesn’t fire should not get more AcP than a GM who actually runs a table at their local GameDay.
The AcP system is already arguably too complicated for its own good. Variable awards based on venue, adventure type. Almost makes me wish we just did something simple. Play a game, get a point, GM a game, get two points. Period, end of line. No what ifs matter. Did you run the game? Yes. Have two points. Did you play the game? Yes. Have one point. Anything other than those two scenarios is no, sorry, no points. Move along.
What's so complicated?
A quest is about 1 hour of play and worth 1 XP, 1 Fame, 1 Reputation, and 1 AcP as a player.
A scenario is about 4 hours of play and worth 4 XP, 4 Fame, 4 Reputation, and 4 AcP as a player.
A module like Plaguestone is 12 XP, 12 Fame, 12 Reputation and 12 AcP.
---
As a GM, you always get double the AcP that someone playing would get.
For conventions, there's a 25% or 50% bonus depending on the convention size. That's actually the most complicated part. For everything else, the amount of AcP is the same as the XP, double if GM.
So when Kevin proposes a 5 AcP consolation prize, he's basically saying "you get half if your table doesn't fire".
|
I didn't want to comment earlier because I didn't have a strong opinion , but after reading through everything I have an idea that hasn't been suggested.
Well, it was suggested by Pirate Rob, in a different thread about a different topic, but I think it can apply here. His concern was regarding lost AcP due to misreporting.
AcP is supposed to be automated, which takes away our agency when a GM's game doesn't fire, an Overseer roleplays Kreighton Shaine, or JimBob gets credit for JoeBob's game. Prior to AcP, someone could fix the problem.
How about we keep AcP automated, but we frontload the system to add an extra X AcP for every X games you've participated in? Whether you've GMed, or played. For people who never have an issue, they're simply bonus points. For people with issues, they're the safety net.
Then we don't have to quantify every situation and can leave AcP to the automation it was designed to be.
|
|
How about we keep AcP automated, but we frontload the system to add an extra X AcP . . .
That's an interesting idea. I think it suffers from that same complication of the system not being designed to accept custom values of AcP.
You could change the initial value for the equation so it doesn't start at zero.
E.g. You get a PFS number, congratulations, you have X AcP plus what you gain participating.
Solely for example, everyone, brand new player to someone who started in Playtest, starts with 24 AcP. Never lose a table due to reporting errors? As Nefreet says, bonus. Lose out on a dozen tables over your career, well, at least it doesn't sting so much.
|
|
I was thinking more like, for every non-Quest that's reported, the system adds +1 AcP.
For example, if I played a scenario for 4 AcP, GMed a scenario for 8 AcP, and played an AP for 12 AcP, I'd get a +3 AcP bonus.
Over time that would add up to cover for the occasional game that didn't fire, or the rare time where I've been Overseer, or when the "6" in my ID# gets read as a "0".
Because I think people who are more involved are going to be the ones who are impacted negatively the most.
|
|
Currently, I have as many unreported sessions as reported (4 and 4 EDIT: For PFS2. I probably have 4 unreported out of several hundred for PF1). All 4 unreported were from conventions. I'll send a reminder about those again soon, but I don't have a very high confidence I'll get credit for all of them (and as discussed in the other thread, it's not important enough to me to constantly pester a friend until I do). There really needs to be some way for someone to manually grant ACP that is not tied to the reporting of the session, which would greatly help with both unreported sessions where no records but the chronicle exist and granting AcP for other contributions.
I'm not sure I'm a fan of the extra AcP, because it's essentially just raising the reward for everything by 1. That then becomes the expectation, and it carries the same problem that everything now does. If the game isn't reported (or reported incorrectly), then you don't get your extra +1 AcP. People will be complaining about losing that, not grateful that they got it on the previous games, because it won't be viewed as "extra." It will be viewed as part of the standard reward.
|
|
He's not wrong about what the perception will become.
If wishes were fishes, I'd wish for:
Each Paizo account has a vendor interface with the in-game currency AcP, the boons are purchased through this interface, deducting AcP from your account.
Each game comes with a Chronicle and a GM Reporting Sheet (as it does now).
Each Chronicle has a unique QR code. Each GM Reporting Sheet comes with a different unique QR code.
You scan your QR code as a player and it awards you 1/4/12 AcP to your account. The system locks that QR code as used.
You scan your QR code as a GM and it awards you 2/8/24 AcP to your account. The system locks that QR code as used.
OPF could create 'gift certificates' with QR codes to give to overseers and marshals to award them whatever value of AcP they want.
Replays would be a problem, though.
Anyhow, not feasible as it would require starting from scratch and probably hiring different software people with a different skill set.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With regards to GMs and conventions, what I see as the largest issue is the same thing I've been saying since it became clear AcPs were going to replace boons for GMs at conventions. It can be very difficult for a small convention to get enough GMs to volunteer. The PFS1 and SFS race boons were an incredible incentive and many GMs volunteered to be able to get one. An extra 25% or 50% of AcPs is not a great incentive. I don't know if I'll ever organize another convention, but if we're also telling the GMs that they might not get any AcPs if their table doesn't fire (which is completely out of their control), I don't know how I'm ever going to get any out of state GMs. I don't even know how many of the ones who have to drive an hour and a half to two hours in-state to volunteer will do so.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that I may have forgotten why race boons were eliminated in the first place.
If I am remembering correctly, the main reason was so that people who could not make it to conventions could still get the race boons.
If that is correct, why not do both? If you GM at a con you get a race boon. In addition, ACPs are awarded.
That way a con GM gets earlier and quicker access to the boons but everybody gets them eventually. Still an incentive to GM at cons
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that I may have forgotten why race boons were eliminated in the first place.
Here is a link to the blog answering this question.
Short version: Race boons were created as an incentive to encourage more people to GM at conventions. But that locked out people who - for a variety of legitimate reasons - were simply unable to attend conventions. ACP is intended to allow anyone to eventually achieve any boon but preserves an incentive to be a convention GM since then you can reach the boons faster because of the bonus ACP.
Our answer is Achievement Points. Whenever you participate in—and report—a Pathfinder Society adventure, you earn Achievement Points. You'll receive a base amount for playing, earn more for GMing, and even more for GMing at Paizo-sponsored conventions like PaizoCon and Gen Con. No matter where you are or how you play, you'll be earning Achievement Points. We haven't finalized the exact numbers, as we are looking at how the Regional Support Program and Event Support for conventions interact and how we can incorporate both into the Achievement Point system. The chart of what activity earns what is one of those announcements for future blogs.
What does one do with these AcP (we're using that abbreviation to not confuse everyone about Adventure Paths)? You can redeem them on the Paizo website for different rewards that you might typically associate with convention boons or GM boons. No doubt that will include access to uncommon ancestries from upcoming products, but it could also include somewhat “meta” benefits like opening up replay options, providing a more comprehensive character rebuild, or starting a new PC at a higher level. Purchase the boon, print off a copy, and keep it with that PC. Or go digital and keep track of your AcP purchases on your My Organized Play page at Paizo.com The system we've requested and are testing auto-fills your organized play number and other key fields, limiting the potential to print off a hundred copies for all of your friends.
All told, it means that someone who plays a lot but never GMs could still save up to grab the reward of their choice, and someone who passionately GMs at numerous shows each year can accumulate and spend AcP more quickly. But everyone has access to the same rewards, with a few exceptions. We expect that there will be occasional limited-access options (like the charity boons Paizo's created for the past several years) but anticipate there to be far less Gen Con-exclusives. We also expect we'll shake up some of the options that AcP can access, but there will be an announcement period so participants can make the most informed decisions for their characters.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is all fine, and ultimately it's a good thing that people have access without having to attend conventions. An extra 2 AcPs to GM at a convention is such a small reward compared to a race boon chronicle sheet, though, that it's just not going to really incentivize anyone who wasn't going to do it anyway. Adding on top of that the possibility that you get 0 AcPs because players pick someone else's table over yours, and it's just that much harder to convince people.
A 15 table convention with 6 slots (not uncommon for my area) means you need 2-3 GMs per slot. You can cover that with 3 people, but then they don't get to play at all (or maybe once all weekend). In the past, we might have 7-8 GMs volunteer to spread around over that number of slots, which means GMs have a chance to play as well, and that we can have people on standby if we need extra tables or manning an HQ area (granted, that becomes less necessary without boon rolls).
Quests, especially, often involve the GM sitting for an entire slot (not playing) in case people walk up asking about the game, so that they can start one anytime during the slot. That GM would get 0 rewards for spending 5 hours of their time sitting at a table waiting for people. The same GM might also volunteer to run Quests several times over the weekend, so that's all they have to prep. If there aren't enough walkups, or if they get absorbed into other games, again, 0 reward for spending a large part of the con volunteering. We'd absolutely have given them a paper race boon in the past.
I like what they are trying to do with the AcP system to make boons more accessible to people. I don't like that they haven't built in a way to reward people other than through sessions being reported. And that's further complicated by the push to make players responsible for ensuring the volunteers report the games.
So again, there needs to be a way to reward GMs who volunteer time that is not dependent on players being there (I'm ok with limiting this to conventions). There also needs to be a way to give players credit for the points they have earned if they have a valid chronicle sheet reflecting that they earned them.
Telling a GM that does all the prep for a game, shows up when they are supposed to show up, and then doesn't have a table because convention attendance isn't what was expected that they get 0 rewards should be unacceptable. Telling a player that played in a game and has a sheet to prove it that because they didn't track down the people who have committed to reporting the game, and they don't have a complete record of everyone who was at the game, that they don't get the points they have earned should also be unacceptable.
All of these things boil down to Paizo needing to take a look at the system and figuring out how to reward people in some way other than through reporting to account for these situations.
|
|
Which part are you describing as "minor," because not being able to get GMs to volunteer is a pretty major problem as far as I'm concerned.
Minor: Missing out on a few AcP because a slot doesn't happen.
Is the lack of ACP for GMs who's slots don't fire a barrier to GM recruitment for you? I don't see it, but understand that PFS runs very differently in different places so suspect there's something I'm missing.
|
|
I think that I may have forgotten why race boons were eliminated in the first place.Here is a link to the blog answering this question.
Short version: Race boons were created as an incentive to encourage more people to GM at conventions. But that locked out people who - for a variety of legitimate reasons - were simply unable to attend conventions. ACP is intended to allow anyone to eventually achieve any boon but preserves an incentive to be a convention GM since then you can reach the boons faster because of the bonus ACP.
** spoiler omitted **...
So, I was remebering correctly. So, just do both. Problem solved.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which part are you describing as "minor," because not being able to get GMs to volunteer is a pretty major problem as far as I'm concerned.Minor: Missing out on a few AcP because a slot doesn't happen.
Is the lack of ACP for GMs who's slots don't fire a barrier to GM recruitment for you? I don't see it, but understand that PFS runs very differently in different places so suspect there's something I'm missing.
Yes, asking someone to GM at a convention with the possibility that they will receive no reward whatsoever is a barrier to recruiting GMs, and it has the potential to kill small conventions.
Edit: or let me put it this way. If the loss of the AcPs is such a minor thing, then it was never much of an incentive in the first place. Which means we’ve definitely lost one of our strongest recruiting tools for convention GMs. I’m guessing SF might be a pretty big area for PFS. Mine is not. Even pulling together four states worth of GMs, it was a struggle not to put the responsibility on 3 or 4 people at the last convention, and that was including PFS1 and SFS that still offer race boons. I think there was only one non-Venture Officer who GMed PFS2.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also: I do think it's non-compelling. The +25%/50% AcP bonus doesn't hold a lot of value for me. I'm sure my experience is fairly far outside the average curve though. (Over 250 AcP earned so far).
The +50% is definitely not enough incentive to convince me to say GM at GenCon.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is AcP really the only reward that's being provided at your conventions for GMing though?
No comped/discounted admission? No priority signups for other slots? No heartfelt thanks? No increased social prestige?
Volunteering for 3 sessions will usually get your admission comped, but that’s up to the convention, not the PFS team. It also does nothing to help get a GM to fill in for a slot to give others a break. And no, we’ve never done priority signups for other tables. I don’t think most of our conventions would allow that. Of course we thank people, but seriously? That’s not going to get anyone to drive 3 hours to run a game in another state. I guess we’re probably just going to gradually stop running the conventions, because when PFS1 dies down, I doubt we’ll be able to pull together 15 tables over a weekend. Interest in SFS is even less than PFS2, and people seem to think volunteering time should be viewed as a privilege instead of something you’re doing to help the campaign. We may as well save the money and run a game at the local shop. It’s cheaper, easier, and grants almost the same benefit for the GM.
|
Premier Event Coordinator
|
The +50% is definitely not enough incentive to convince me to say GM at GenCon.
Yeah, if all the rewards that are already offered at Gen Con are not enough to incentivize someone to GM, I seriously doubt the possibility of getting half value on the very few tables that don’t make is going to make any difference. We could easily double or triple the AcP rewards at Gen Con and it’s not going to make much difference to the people who don’t already GM. Maybe, and I say a big maybe, someone who is already volunteering might add another slot or two since generally the preparation investment goes down the more slots you do, increasing the likelihood of running the same scenario/s more times, but even then I wouldn’t expect to see more than a marginal change.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of awesome debate! Please keep it up!
It is difficult for me to comment on how much an incentive AcPs are to GMs for my small cons. It has not really been problem because almost all of the 2e tables have made. But getting a small amount of AcP for a table that did not fire it is something that a con GM can at least feel like their getting a small reward for their effort to prep the table.
For game days, I see the awarding of AcPs for non-firing tables is the VO/Store Organizer call. If a table does not fire because I made a mistake and offer something that my local players were not interested in, that is not the GM's fault. It is also not the GM's fault if 5 people sign up and then come time for the table only 2 show up. I see AcP being award here. If a GM is unable to run the table, for whatever the reason, I don't believe AcP should be awarded.
As for the amount of AcP, I think 5 is too much. At most, I think an award of 2 is sufficient. This is regardless of the level of Con.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
I just enjoy running sessions at Gen Con period. There are plenty of rewards if you run five to seven sessions. The AcP is an added bonus which I think will be more valuable as time goes on. Boons are always hit or miss depending on one's perspective while with AcP you can purchase what you want or bank them waiting for something you do want to come along.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Let me clarify a couple of things.
Bob, I believe that both Rob and I were saying that the extra 50% for GMing a game that actually happens is not much of an incentive. Meaning earning 12 AcPs at Gencon vs 8 AcPs at a local game (or, really, 10 if you have RSP) is not a real incentive for a lot of people. I'm really uncertain what other incentives there are for Gencon. I know if you essentially volunteer to GM all weekend, you get to share a room with three other people or something like that. And maybe there are Paizo gift certificates/coupons involved? Maybe you can let us know what other incentives there are? My guess is you'll see more people wanting to get the room incentive, and far fewer people wanting to GM 3 or 4 or 5 games.
(The rest is not directed specifically to Bob. Also, it's a bit of a rant and not directed at any individual. Just overall frustration with the direction Paizo has gone with this.)
I am, however, not talking about large conventions like Gencon. I'm talking about small conventions in the 15-30 or so table range. Those have been important for building and maintaining interest in PFS in a small area in the past. When you only have a few regular local GMs, you need to have people GM at the convention who don't normally GM, or your regulars are going to get burned out very quickly. That might mean the player who's been thinking about giving it a try, or it might mean convincing a GM to come in from out of state.
The reward for GMing a single game at a local convention (in my case, I'll be generous and say one of 4 conventions in a 4-state area over the course of the year) is effectively the same as GMing a game at an RSP location.
AcPs are the same. 10 and 10. (I realize the plan is to remove RSP when there's a local convention coming up. I'm not a fan of lowering an incentive for one event and calling it a bonus for attending a convention. Plus, 2 extra AcPs is such a small bonus to begin with).
In theory, there's scenario support for the convention. In reality, we haven't gotten scenario support for close to 3 years now at any of those 4 conventions. The lone exception that I'm aware of to that was that we did get 1 special (Solstice Scar C, which should never have been locked behind a request to begin with), but we had to cancel running it, because we received the scenario 2 days before the convention and no one had time to prep it. Nobody received any of their other scenarios that convention, and I ended up buying scenarios for several people. Hopefully this situation will improve with Paizo hiring some help. The stay at home has canceled our first opportunity to see if it made a difference, since the May convention isn't happening.
Running a single session generally does not get you free admission to the convention. That typically takes 3 (of 6, so half the con). One of the 4 has gone to a model of anyone who GMs gets a reduced entry fee, but everyone has to pay that regardless of how many sessions you GM. That's at least something. Though they could also go GM some other system and get the same benefit.
Beyond that, for PFS2, there aren't any other rewards for a small convention.
To say, on top of that, that you might not even get any AcPs if the table doesn't happen, or a consolation boon, or anything at all is, to be honest, insulting and not a situation where I'm going to be comfortable asking someone who rarely GMs to step up and try it. If the system can't handle giving out AcPs, then give small conventions gift certificates/coupons (whatever they are calling them for legal purposes) that are specifically meant for the GMs, one per GM or one per session or one if a table doesn't fire (as opposed to the prize support, which is meant fo be randomly given. Make the GMs ineligible for that if you want). Come up with something so we're not asking people to dedicate time and spend money to make an event happen and then telling them tough luck if, for whatever reason that isn't their fault, players aren't there for their tables.
We need those people for small cons. We need people running 1 or 2 sessions so everything isn't on 3-4 people all weekend. Conventions in the past have been our greatest recruiting tool for new GMs. I GMed for PFS the first time at a local convention 8 years ago. The race boon has been the main draw for a new GM to give it a try, when they've otherwise declined for the normal game days.
I've, personally, more than once, signed up to GM a session relatively last minute (within 2-3 weeks of a convention), because they didn't have someone to cover it. I wasn't planning to attend the conventions at all, but decided to go ahead and make the 2 1/2 hour one-way drive and pay the $35 to get into the con for the day to help them out. And, hey, I get a race boon out of it, so sure. There's very little chance I'm going to do that for PFS2. And even less chance if I might not get anything for my trouble. The convention is two states away and not heavily attended by people from my area (it happens to be the same weekend as Paizocon, so a lot of people are there instead). I can stay much closer to home, not spend money getting into the convention or on gas, get effectively the same rewards, and support my local area more by just running a game at our local shop. Would being guaranteed 2 or 5 AcPs change my mind? No, probably not. But at least if I did decide to go anyway, I'm not going to feel like I completely wasted 10 hours.
Far too often on the boards things are viewed from the standpoint of a large area with lots of PFS players and willing GMs and volunteers. The entire point of these reward incentives should be to help build a small area into something bigger, and that whole concept is really getting lost in this system. Yes, AcPs make boons more accessible to people who can't travel to conventions. No, the extra points for GMing aren't significant enough to effectively expand a GM pool beyond people who were going to do so already, at a convention or a game day. Maybe that will change when you can actually spend the points. We'll just have to wait and see when that happens (if that ever happens).
To people who will inevitably respond that GMing should be its own reward and incentives aren't necessary, I can count on you to fly down here and GM at our next convention, then, right? How is October for you?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My suggestions (see above) are also mainly from the perspective of relatively small conventions. For some/many of these conventions there simply aren't many incentives to offer. When a GM volunteers, the table doesn't make, and they end up with nothing, that can be quite offputting. (Yes, most convention GMs enjoy GMing anyway. But that doesn't mean they are jumping at the bit to give up their weekend on the chance that they might GM.)
A "minimum guaranteed" ACP is at least something to sweeten the pot.
All of these are real conventions that had a PFS presence.
1. Moderately well-off person spends several hundred dollars of his own money to rent out the meeting space of a suburban hotel on a dead weekend. Registration required (and space-limited), but admission was free.
2. Corporate pop-culture business rents out convention center for two days for their autograph/comic sales/photo-op business. Realizes they can't fill the space and offers to let RPGs fill up some of the extra space with no admission fee to that area. (Hoping the RPG'ers will buy badges to see the rest of the show.)
3. College club puts on convention on campus. Since they are a campus club they get the space dirt-cheap. I think general admission for the whole weekend was 5 or 6 dollars.
None of those examples are providing lodging to anyone. So that incentive is out. Two of them are free and the third is so cheap that free admission isn't going to change anyone's mind.
Boons (particularly race boons) were the one incentive that could work regardless of convention size and type. A minimum ACP could fill that void as well.
|
Organized Play Manager
|
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've read through the thread and had preliminary talks with the other OP folks.
The team is on board with creating a policy that would give a limited amount of AcP for non-firing tables. At first glance, doing it through the AAR and the OP team makes the most sense. It allows us to watch who is requesting it and pivot discussions with event organizers who display trends of over-scheduling. We also lean towards limiting it to conventions and using a a 2 point range (no more than 1/2 what a GM earns) per block. They would not be awarded to GMs who go on to play a table and earn player points, to reduce the concerns of double dipping.
One of our other plans has been to open an "Organizer" GM credit poolOrganizers would earn 1 point per block and would see rewards on paizo.com similar to stars/novas/glyphs. We need to look at what specials/evaluations look like, but in this case, thoughts are that specials would = Tier 1-2 events or "spotlight" events for regions that don't have Tier 1-2 and evaluation matrix would be similar to SFS.
I'm putting our thoughts here to pivot the discussions on the points above. Please continue to keep the discussions focused on the results.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Ohio—Toledo
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ferious Thune, your comments about smaller conventions are spot on, based on my own personal experience as someone who organizes, GM's, and plays at several small conventions each year. My VA and I donate our own money to provide water, snacks, and Subway cards to incentivize GM participation at our local con. Race boons for PFS/SFS are the #1 incentive, (correction - free badge for the con is #2), free food is #3. We have to retain meaningful incentives to attract GM's from outside our local area, otherwise our ability to staff tables will be cut in half.
|
Premier Event Coordinator
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
physical Boon
If by physical you mean adding that option to the menu for AcP, that's fine. If you mean a pdf that has to be printed and distributed by the organizer for the event, then no. We need to continue to move in the direction of paperless rewards. Ideally, using Gen Con as the model, we should have to print any rewards of any kind. Everything is handled digitally. And that process should propagate down through the community.