Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Agree with Bob on the direction that boon handling should go
I understand the desire to have something available immediately. Maybe functionality to enter a code that opens up a reward in the AcP.
But it is likely that the technology that Paizo currently has cannot handle this.
The handling of paper boons is going away.
Venture-Captain, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to be able to give the volunteers who man our headquarters table some sort of reward in the new system. I also worry about incentivizing our volunteers.
Right now, with paper boons for conventions, it's easy enough--everyone gets excited to earn that race boon! I do fear that as we increasingly move to AcP, going from "earn a race boon" to "earn exactly as many AcP as you do in our local events" is going to hurt. We lost a lot of our dedicated GMs in the edition change, so the group of intrinsically motivated gamemasters is much smaller. We do have a wider population of potential GMs, but by and large they still need a lot of extrinsic motivation to sign up and run.
Our local conventions are cheap enough that getting free admission is a little motivation, but not much.
Just to add another data point: we have also historically provided boons to GMs whose tables don't fire, although we base our tablecounts on projections based on past data and prune pretty heavily if it looks like we have a dead table. Couple that with centrally-managed game schedules and we don't run into too many overscheduling issues. Having an outlet to provide AcP for GM of the game (or two) every convention that doesn't go off would be helpful though, and I'll look forward to hearing more as that idea develops!
|
|
physical BoonIf 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.
I was surprised as hell that my PF2 Charity boon I won was a physical boon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've read through the thread and had preliminary talks with the other OP folks.
...
I'm putting our thoughts here to pivot the discussions on the points above. Please continue to keep the discussions focused on the results.
I think while this thread should be narrowly focused on the points you specifically brought up, your discussions with "OP folks" should really take stock at what appears to be a pretty wide diversity of experiences.
It appears that in some parts of the country, there are corrupt organizers and corrupt GMs who are colluding and necessitating complex systems of checks and balances that require national-level attention. This is a HUGE problem.
I'm very happy to say that my experience has been nearly the exact opposite of that. When I was a new player, people gave up their seats in full games so I could play; when a bunch of us were standing around gameless, a GM whipped out a copy of The Confirmation and started an impromptu game; when I GMed, the organizers made sure I was well-prepared so that both me and my players had a great time.
I feel like my reward for GMing is that I get to return the favor for some great games I've played and great experiences I've had. If (almost) any of the local (SF Bay Area) organizers asked me to GM a non-repeatable scenario that I straight up wouldn't get credit for, I'd agree in an instant. I know that many of them have GMed for no credit for others. It's just normal.
It makes me sad that apparently somewhere out there, after a request to GM, there would be a negotiation about whether 1 or 2 AcP would be received if they agreed to GM and the table didn't go. I mean, I guess there have to be rules about it, but it seems like every thread is about making ironclad rules because someone somewhere might find a way to get a bunch of stars besides their name on a website.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Watery Soup, you may be reading too much into some posts. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that cheating is endemic in their region, just anecdotal evidence that yes, bad apples do exist.
So there has been some discussion of what simple measures can be put into place to prevent casual cheating. The first is to not allow people to award additional ACP directly using the reporting system. The second is to use the After Action Report to provide an audit trail if necessary. (That’s actually much easier than it sounds. Google Forms is used for the AAR and it can output a spreadsheet.)
I’d probably implement it as a comparison. Assuming 2 ACP for a non-firing table and 1 for an admin volunteer, lets say we expect 1 volunteer ACP per 10 tables per slot. And we consider it “good” if 90% of tables fire and “acceptable” if 80% fire. (Just making up numbers here.) So if I submit a convention with 6 slots of 5 tables each, the sheet would automatically calculate that 12 or less additional ACP is “good” and 13-18 is “acceptable.” Then we compare that with the ACP I actually asked for and get a single cell with “green,” “yellow,” or “red.”
It took me longer to type that than it would to make a spreadsheet that could do it. I don’t think my numbers are particularly great, I just needed something to use as an example. I definitely think the OPF should not publicly release the real percentages - again to prevent people from gaming the system.
Can a determined cheater eke out a few extra ACP? Of course. But the idea here is that if we can remove the easy temptations without creating a mountain of work, let’s do that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Watery Soup, you may be reading too much into some posts. I don’t think anyone is suggesting that cheating is endemic in their region, just anecdotal evidence that yes, bad apples do exist.
It should be given an amount of attention proportional to the problem.
MAJOR PROBLEM: Nobody can redeem AcP, whether they have 1 or 1,000. Spend time fixing that.
MAJOR PROBLEM: Some games are reported as 4 AcP, others 1 AcP. Spend time fixing that.
Minor problem: Whether a GM that volunteers for a no-show game should get rewards at all and how much. Who cares?
MAJOR PROBLEM: Work/reward ratio for GMing being so different from playing that people would rather not attend a convention than do their first choice. Spend time investigating that and carefully balancing that.
Minor problem: How to audit the organizers' disbursements of a discretionary AcP fund. Yawn.
---
You don't need to explain how simple the system is, because - and this is a positive thing even though it sounds negative - I don't care. If I sign up to GM and the table doesn't go, I'll go play another table. Or I'll play a non-Society game with the people who did show up (my first GM experience was a "canceled" game, one player and one walkin showed - I helped a new player build a character and then we ran the scenario non-legally with two pregens). Or I'll trust the organizer to take care of it.
I will decline the 1 AcP offered because it means so little to me that it's insulting relative to the sunk work and trivial relative to the reward. It's not even worth the time it would take to fill out the paperwork.
Venture-Lieutenant, Nebraska—Bellevue
|
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
Honestly, I think this is where we will be headed. But we have to keep in mind that at this time, campaign staff don't have a lot of bonus races to work with.
A simple proposal is that new races published in Lost Omens campaign hardbacks are a combination of the following:
- common enough to be PFS eligible out the gate; or unlocked through the campaign (see Ghibrani in SFS; there are story hints this could happen for any of the three LOCG races)
- uncommon/rare, but readily available to most through ACP at varying costs
Races from other sources (like the one in the new AP or future Beastiaries) could be available:
- through a convention GM Boon or potentially a multiple play unlock
boon (see the first Skittermander boon in SFS).
- or, if really rare, through a charity boon
I honestly see this as a first year, early problem that resolves itself over time. I recall how limited it felt for races in Starfinder in the first part of year 1 (even legacy races weren't available at campaign start). But almost 3 years in, there are so many ways to get race boons that there are tons of choices for players, with GMs incentivized by getting access to some of the really cool or rare ones.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MAJOR PROBLEM: Nobody can redeem AcP, whether they have 1 or 1,000. Spend time fixing that.
MAJOR PROBLEM: Some games are reported as 4 AcP, others 1 AcP. Spend time fixing that.
These aren't Society issues. They're website issues. They also don't technically need "fixing", because the system hasn't gone live, yet.
Minor problem: Whether a GM that volunteers for a no-show game should get rewards at all and how much. Who cares?
MAJOR PROBLEM: Work/reward ratio for GMing being so different from playing that people would rather not attend a convention than do their first choice. Spend time investigating that and carefully balancing that.
Minor problem: How to audit the organizers' disbursements of a discretionary AcP fund. Yawn.
These are the Society issues, hence why they're being discussed in this Forum.
I hope that helps clear things up.
|
|
They also don't technically need "fixing", because the system hasn't gone live, yet.
So why is all the time spent on how many AcP to give to GMs of non-firing tables? Is 1 unusable AcP improper compensation for driving 4 hours to a convention, whereas 2 unusable AcP is somehow better?
Also addressing one issue does not mean no other issues are capable of being addressed.
In theory, yes.
In practicality, people have limited time they're willing to put in, so every moment that people spend discussing AcP for non-firing tables is one fewer moment for discussing why there are so many non-firing tables. Every hour that the VOs spend reporting their bonus AcP pool usage is one less hour they spend training new GMs or recruiting new players so there aren't non-firing tables.
Why is nobody asking why estimates of player volume were so far off that GMs sitting around is not an outlier?
Why is nobody asking, if there's a free table and a prepped GM, if people have tried soliciting randos out of the corridor?
Why is it not contested, or at least critically questioned, the assumption that if a table doesn't fire, the GM curls into the fetal position, sobbing in the corner, and needs AcP consolation ... rather than play? If there are 4 tables of 6 players, are there so few flexible people that you can't find 4 people willing to play a second choice game to make 5 legal tables?
When do we get to talk about these issues? (The answer: never, because people used all their time discussing how to prevent cheaters from getting an extra AcP every convention.)
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In practicality, people have limited time they're willing to put in, so every moment that people spend discussing AcP for non-firing tables is one fewer moment for discussing why there are so many non-firing tables. Every hour that the VOs spend reporting their bonus AcP pool usage is one less hour they spend training new GMs or recruiting new players so there aren't non-firing tables.
Those things do not remotely take the same levels of effort or preparation. Practically speaking, that time is not interchangeable.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why is nobody asking why estimates of player volume were so far off that GMs sitting around is not an outlier?
Because
1) If you have a DM but don't need them you have 1 unhappy person. If you need a DM but don't have them you have 6 unhappy people.
2) A DM can become a player on 2 minutes notice with no problem. A player cannot a DM of a particular scenario on 2 minutes notice with any reliability.
3) Cons are chaotic events. You get your players +/- 1d4 that show up (-1d8 for AM slots)
you put that all together and the most optimum plan is to overstock with DMs and adapt your plan from there.
Why is nobody asking, if there's a free table and a prepped GM, if people have tried soliciting randos out of the corridor?
This is how i wound up doing a special with gokau.
This strategy works okay for low level games, less so if someone was preparing say, champion level uber tier gallowspires.
Why is it not contested, or at least critically questioned, the assumption that if a table doesn't fire, the GM curls into the fetal position, sobbing in the corner, and needs AcP consolation ... rather than play?
Depends on the convention size, and the availability of a game the DM hasn't played yet. (Also one reason I'd like a bus exception to replays for no credit)
If there are 4 tables of 6 players, are there so few flexible people that you can't find 4 people willing to play a second choice game to make 5 legal tables?
Finding them when they've probably already started their game is a bit of a hassle. You don't know a table is borked until 15 minutes after start time sometime, and then its a little late to do geek suduko to find out who's played what.
When do we get to talk about these issues? (The answer: never, because people used all their time discussing how to prevent cheaters from getting an extra AcP every convention.)
You can start a thread for it....
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Watery Soup, I'm assuming you're "playing devil's advocate" (or some similar term). In case you are not and are genuinely interested in our viewpoints on your questions, here are my answers:
So why is all the time spent on how many AcP to give to GMs of non-firing tables? Is 1 unusable AcP improper compensation for driving 4 hours to a convention, whereas 2 unusable AcP is somehow better?
We know the ACP system is broken. We sincerely hope Paizo is working to fix it as well as possible. Harping on it isn't going to make it happen faster. This is a completely separate issue. One with a different implementation and timeframe. If you're building a house, you don't wait to plan the framing until the driveway is finished. (And yes, that is a good analogy. You need the road to get the house materials in place, but you can design the house in anticipation of the road being completed.)
Why is nobody asking why estimates of player volume were so far off that GMs sitting around is not an outlier?
That is something we are asking. Hence using the AAR to assign the additional ACP so that RVCs and OPF staffers can offer guidance/mentoring to the Con organizer (and note for future events) if the volume is far off estimates.
Why is nobody asking, if there's a free table and a prepped GM, if people have tried soliciting randos out of the corridor?
Which is something that is continually going on. From my personal experience as an organizer, the most difficult thing to estimate is how many brand new players you will have. For a convention with 5 or more tables a slot most organizers will want to offer at least one "intro" table each slot. (Not necessarily one billed as an intro, but a low-level game without complicated mechanics.) And you just don't know how many attendees are going to be interested in a new game. Especially one that's going to take four hours or more.
Why is it not contested, or at least critically questioned, the assumption that if a table doesn't fire, the GM curls into the fetal position, sobbing in the corner, and needs AcP consolation ... rather than play?
That has been questioned (without the hyperbole). People have already mentioned it in this thread. If the GM can play, they usually do. But sometimes the tables are all full, or the GM cannot replay the games that are not full.
If there are 4 tables of 6 players, are there so few flexible people that you can't find 4 people willing to play a second choice game to make 5 legal tables?
Yes.
Longer answer: there's a lot of layers to this question. Many of the usual players signed up for a particular game they really want to play. There's the "have you already played...?" issues. And speaking as an organizer, you usually don't release a GM until 10 or 15 minutes after a slot's starting time (giving time for walk-ups and possible no-shows) Placing one player into a table that has already had the briefing isn't a huge deal. But asking four players from various tables to forget their first briefing, move to another table, and start over (maybe including what characters they are playing) is a bigger deal. Not saying we don't try to do this. I certainly do at a 5-table slot, but it is logistically difficult.When do we get to talk about these issues? (The answer: never, because people used all their time discussing how to prevent cheaters from getting an extra AcP every convention.)
This thread starts off with a simple premise. "Doesn't it suck when you prep to GM and the table doesn't fire and you get nothing for it? We used to get race boons at conventions but you don't even get that with 2E. Can we do something to incentivize/reward GMs in those situations? We don't want people to stop GMing."
Your posts have attempted to assert that there's no reason a GM should ever end up in a situation where they don't GM or play in a slot. And if they don't it's because someone is being selfish/stupid/lazy. And convention organizers are saying with 100% certainty that this is not true. The goal is of course to always have everyone who showed up to participate in a PFS game playing or GMing a PFS game. But sometimes it just doesn't work out.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it not contested, or at least critically questioned, the assumption that if a table doesn't fire, the GM curls into the fetal position, sobbing in the corner, and needs AcP consolation ... rather than play?That has been questioned (without the hyperbole). People have already mentioned it in this thread. If the GM can play, they usually do. But sometimes the tables are all full, or the GM cannot replay the games that are not full.
The are also situations like I mentioned, where a GM has volunteered to GM quests and sits there for an entire block waiting to see if players appear (or trying to round them up like was mentioned). I'll also often volunteer to GM in a slot where there isn't something scheduled that I could play.
If there are 4 tables of 6 players, are there so few flexible people that you can't find 4 people willing to play a second choice game to make 5 legal tables?Yes.
Longer answer: there's a lot of layers to this question. Many of the usual players signed up for a particular game they really want to play. There's the "have you already played...?" issues. And speaking as an organizer, you usually don't release a GM until 10 or 15 minutes after a slot's starting time (giving time for walk-ups and possible no-shows) Placing one player into a table that has already had the briefing isn't a huge deal. But asking four players from various tables to forget their first briefing, move to another table, and start over (maybe including what characters they are playing) is a bigger deal. Not saying we don't try to do this. I certainly do at a 5-table slot, but it is logistically difficult.
In addition, we now have 4 separate systems to consider. We ran into this at our last con. Some people only wanted to play PFS1. Some PFS2. Some might have only wanted SFS or the PACG. It's a 15 table requirement across 4 systems. There isn't always going to be a second table of PFS2 running in a slot. Though one would hope it's the other way around going forward, and PFS2 is getting more interest and participation than PFS1, so it's not the PFS2 table falling through. That won't necessarily hold true for SFS or the PACG. There might be more interest in those than PFS2 for a given slot. On top of that, people don't have a ton of replays sitting around for PFS2 right now, and, again, it's not uncommon to volunteer to GM a slot because there's nothing else that you can play in that slot.
Since replays have come up a couple of times... Maybe that's part of the solution? Grant a GM whose table falls through a free replay boon, but only if they move to another table during that slot? If the limit is still replaying any scenario once, then that wouldn't always work, either, but at least it's more of a guarantee they'd be able to play something.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will also note that the ability as a GM to recruit random people to your table when it folds varies on a lot of factors:
1) Are there bored random people milling about with nothing to do, or is everyone that you see rushing to some other program?
2) Are you the kind of extroverted person who can walk up to a group of strangers and say, "Hey, want to play an awesome game for an hour? I've got this great little gothic adventure that could be fun for your whole group!"
3) Do you have the social skills to pull that off?
4) Is this a game system they are even interested in?
I often pack a quest as a backup for conventions should my table fall through, and then go hunting for strangers to play with me so that I can still GM. I am very, very good at this, but I've had convention organizers note that my skill at selling my games to complete strangers is a bit on the rare side.
Even so, I have had the sucky experience of having my table fall though at Conventions and not managed a pickup game to fill it because there was some other fabulous event competing in that timeslot, or the stars were aligned against me at that time. Games falling through at conventions happens to everyone at times.
Once I get people playing, my table will usually hop all night with different new people wanting to get in because laughter and sound effects draw people in. But sometimes you don't get that first group of people wanting to try the quest you've got prepped.
Hmm
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you the kind of extroverted person who can walk up to a group of strangers and say, "Hey, want to play an awesome game for an hour? I've got this great little gothic adventure that could be fun for your whole group!"
The reason my wife and I are in the Pathfinder community is because Painlord spotted me looking curiously at what was going on in the PFS room at a convention, buttonholed me, and ushered me to a place at a table. (This was before quests were a thing, so that was for a full 4-hour scenario).
The next day I had got into a (non-pathfinder) game but my wife had not, so he found her a seat at a table of "First Steps".|
|
Should GM's who's tables don't go off get rewarded for their prep efforts?
No.
Did your table not go off?
Go play another game.
Did you prep for 5 hours and spend $50?
Run the game another time. Feel like your money is gone to waste? Offer your prepped materials to a table of the scenario that is going off (I used to do this myself when I gm'ed at gencon and paizocon).
Is this a con and your table didn't go off?
Go rest before your next table. Your reward is that you have time to rest (a significantly better reward over points).
One does not deserve rewards for volunteering. If that were so, it wouldn't be volunteering. (pssst...rooted in its definition is not getting paid [or compensated]) The perks you receive for volunteering do not make it a transaction, they are just perks. Demanding more makes you sound entitled. It is not a good look.
But, hey. That is just my opinion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question arose as one of parity between PFS(1) and PFS(2) GMing.
GM Bob signs up to GM PFS(1) scenario at ExampleCon but the table folds; he gets his Race Boon.
GM Fred signs up to GM PFS(2) scenario at ExampleCon but the table folds; he gets nothing because the AcP system was designed with the idea that if you GM, you're getting 2.25 times the reward as the players at your table. It didn't take into account your table not happening.
Incentives exist and have existed and have been relied upon to keep PFS events at conventions, especially smaller ones, running. If PFS(1) GMs still get something, you cannot fairly say to the PFS(2) GM, "One does not deserve rewards for volunteering," and expect that GM to come back and help you next time.
As was stated above: you don't always get another table in that slot nor do you always need rest.
"Oh, thank you! I had a full 8 hours of sleep the night before because I budget my time to keep myself healthy, but, yay, I get 4-5 more hours to do nothing rest! Yay! Doing nothing Resting is so much better than earning my way toward Hobgoblin (or whatever ancestry floats your boat)"
|
|
*shrug*
Different systems are different and things happen. They could easily be offered a physical boon from PF1 or SFS. If they don't want one...they had the choice.
I can fairly say that because I'd accept it if it were me. If it is good enough for me, it is good enough for others. Darn my lack of greediness, it really makes me a terrible person! It'll likely cause better GMs to stay anyway. Squeaky wheels aren't enjoyable to be around anywho.
Yeah, physical rest is in fact the only rest a body/person needs...goodness forbid you have a surprise 4-5 hours free to enjoy a con. If you choose to do nothing with the surprise time...kinda your choice.
But again, that's how I see it.
|
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Should GM's who's tables don't go off get rewarded for their prep efforts?
No.Did your table not go off?
Go play another game.Did you prep for 5 hours and spend $50?
Run the game another time. Feel like your money is gone to waste? Offer your prepped materials to a table of the scenario that is going off (I used to do this myself when I gm'ed at gencon and paizocon).Is this a con and your table didn't go off?
Go rest before your next table. Your reward is that you have time to rest (a significantly better reward over points).One does not deserve rewards for volunteering. If that were so, it wouldn't be volunteering. (pssst...rooted in its definition is not getting paid [or compensated]) The perks you receive for volunteering do not make it a transaction, they are just perks. Demanding more makes you sound entitled. It is not a good look.
But, hey. That is just my opinion.
You are especially cold hearted.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
physical BoonIf 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.
Aside from "We're moving to paperless office because it's better for the environment" point, what's the driving force behind moving from physical paper copies to a digital one? Is there a reason other than "let's use less paper?"
I think Blake's Tiger is at the root of the problem. PFS1 gives GMs what feels like a generous reward (at least for new GMs - old ones may have their pockets filled with various boons already anyway) while PFS2 gives less than peanuts for what is essentially the same amount of work. However, watery soup has a point. Honeslty, I'm not going to GM PFS2 at conventions -for the reward-, I'll do it if it's needed. I -will- gm PFS1 at a con -specifically for the reward-. If the difference is "get a race boon" vs "get 1/20th of a race boon" then I'll pick the first option any day. I'm not going to spend time writing up a report or even filling a blank table in the buggy reporting system for 2 or 3 points, my time is better spent elsewhere. And honestly, conventions are enough work to arrange already - as an organized I certainly don't want to spend extra time to report a couple of missing points.
PFS2 (convention) GM rewards are not worth the effort, amd unless the system is fundamentally changed (get a coupon code for a digital boon (race or otherwise), or something), whatever "consolidation" acp reward can be given to GM's for non-firing tables feels meaningless.
|
|
Aside from "We're moving to paperless office because it's better for the environment" point, what's the driving force behind moving from physical paper copies to a digital one? Is there a reason other than "let's use less paper?"
Judging from the system the goal appears to remove the burden on staff to assign, verify, send, print, and hand out these things and just have the computer do it.
It also lets someone combine their Con dm class and their Gameday dm points
And encourages dming more than one game getting your chronicle and bouncing.
While a DM that would usually DM one game get a race boon is losing under this system I don't think a DM dming all 7 slots loses that much if anything.
|
|
Yes. The thing is -- with the exception of GenCon, where I chained myself to a table and never left -- at most cons I GM 3-4 tables. I want time off and time to play alongside my boyfriend. This system is designed to encourage GMs not to do just the minimum requirement, but to GM as much as possible at a convention to expedite getting their race boons. For someone like me, I feel slightly less incentivized to GM under the ACP system.
Still... it is a more fair measurement of commitment to the campaign overall, whether as a GM or as a player.
Hmm
|
|
You are especially cold hearted.Should GM's who's tables don't go off get rewarded for their prep efforts?
No.Did your table not go off?
Go play another game.Did you prep for 5 hours and spend $50?
Run the game another time. Feel like your money is gone to waste? Offer your prepped materials to a table of the scenario that is going off (I used to do this myself when I gm'ed at gencon and paizocon).Is this a con and your table didn't go off?
Go rest before your next table. Your reward is that you have time to rest (a significantly better reward over points).One does not deserve rewards for volunteering. If that were so, it wouldn't be volunteering. (pssst...rooted in its definition is not getting paid [or compensated]) The perks you receive for volunteering do not make it a transaction, they are just perks. Demanding more makes you sound entitled. It is not a good look.
But, hey. That is just my opinion.
*nods*
I have been told that. I suppose it is meaningless that I am one who GMs at cons and am okay with this?For those who would write off my comments as "Well he has disposable income." I would tell you that I spent almost all of the money I had a couple years, just to travel to GenCon and PaizoCon and GM. I spent money to get printed maps or even spent money to make some 3D terrain. The money I spent was not nothing to me. I even ate pb&j for my meals, without the bread.
I am not telling you this to make you feel sorry for me or something. I'm telling you this so that you understand it when I say that I think that anyone who asks for more rewards than what you are given (or not) sounds like they think they are entitled. You have volunteered just the same as me. Volunteering, as per its definition, is offering services for free. Therefore we deserve nothing for it. That we get rewards is a perk and a 'thank you' from Paizo. It is not a payment for your time. That is a whole ordeal that does not need to be rehashed because somebody get an entitled wild hair.
GMing does not make you or I special. It is just a way to volunteer to help make this whole thing happen. Volunteering does not make you special. I am grateful to all of those who do volunteer (some in the past have tried to imply otherwise). But gratefulness doesn't mean special.
Some will and have responded to my comments with "But how will you have enough GMs?" Eh.. As a player, I'd much rather have a good GM than a warm body at the head of the table. Good GMs in all of my experiences are those who GM for enjoyment or for altruistic reasons. Those who GM for other reasons have been lesser. That may be harsh, but it has been my experience. Having X stars/novas/glyphs doesn't make a good GM. Being a good GM makes a good GM.
Now that I've ranted again, you may disregard or disagree. Eh... I believe it is my duty to correct or call out problems as I see them, as a human being. Malice is not my intention, despite what some may think or feel. Take what you will from my words, I've done what I can.
|
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, you can be cold-hearted and still be a nice guy.
Anyways, how you feel about this question is how you feel. I, for one, will not say you can't feel the way you do.
The reason why I started this tread (which is the longest one I started I think) is to have a discussion about non-firing tables. Tonya acknowledge they are looking at this.
So to me, the thread is doing what I intended.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disliked the attitude of folks who came to a con to run one table to get a race boon in PFS1. It was more of a "I got mine, see ya" attitude. I'll run PFS2 at cons and have a great time doing it because for one thing I prefer the edition far, far, far to Xth degree than PFS1 and for another, I like picking up the bonus AcP. I do have to admit I run so many games that the bonus AcP really isn't going to do much for me. Of course I've got stacks of PFS1 boons that I don't use because I don't like the race or boon features. Plus of course I am not playing PFS1 anymore.
I run games for the same reason I started running games in 1979. I like running games and having a great time at a table with people who appreciate a great game. I organize Org Play at cons and monthly events for the same reason plus I want to contribute to the awesomeness of the game itself. It's going to be here when I'm gone. I really enjoy being part of something bigger than just me and my imagination.
Basically put, if you are GMing at cons just for a race boon or some points, then I just don't like that mentality when it comes to the game.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this may be dependant on the size of the con. Locally, I've never seen the need for GM's to run more than one or two tables (the second one usually being a multitable special) - I'm guessing that huge cons need everyone to run 3+ tables just to have enough tables for everyone to play at, while locally it's been enough if everyone runs one or two games.
I honestly don't understand the comment of "I dislike the attitude of folks who came to a con to run one table to get a race boon". Why? Those people who come to the con to run a table, provide entertainment for 4-6 people for 4-5 hours. Locally, that's usually enough to get one-day ticket to the con. This means that if they remain for just the one day, they are sacrificing nearly half of their con experience to arrange a game for other people. Running 2 games gets you a ticket for the whole weekend.
I think it's unreasonable to demand people to run 4+ tables during a weekend. That's a huge workload, and prevents them from enjoying the rest of the con themselves. Of course, if your con has need for 100+ tables and you only have 25 GM's, you need each of them to run 4 tables to have enough games... But at that point, does it really make sense to reduce the rewards for PFS2? Less incentive for the GMs = Less GMs = More work for the few GMs you do have.
Also, it's not a binary question. Some people will surely GM even if there are no rewards. Some people won't GM even if there -are- rewards. But the more you cut the rewards, the smaller the pool of people willing to GM. I know people who GM (or arrange other entertainment) at cons only because they want to get into the con, and the con tickets are expensive. I used to do that too, for 10 years straight, I'd GM mafia games for 8 hours per day to earn my ticket. We started off with just 2 people running the games, but we grew during those years to have 6 GM's at the end. I finally quit running them and passed on the mantle to the other GMs when I started playing PFS2 and realized that I couldn't do both at the same con.
Cons don't offer rewards because people believe they should be compensated. Cons offer rewards because they want to entice people to run programs for them - without GMs and the like, there are no cons. Whether you do it for pure altruism or not doesn't really change the fact that the reasons for GMing are individual - some do it because they like it, some do it because nobody else will, and some do it because they want that RSP boon. Most do it for all these reasons, and how much each individual reason weights for them is personal.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Ohio—Toledo
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
physical BoonIf 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.Aside from "We're moving to paperless office because it's better for the environment" point, what's the driving force behind moving from physical paper copies to a digital one? Is there a reason other than "let's use less paper?"
I think Blake's Tiger is at the root of the problem. PFS1 gives GMs what feels like a generous reward (at least for new GMs - old ones may have their pockets filled with various boons already anyway) while PFS2 gives less than peanuts for what is essentially the same amount of work. However, watery soup has a point. Honeslty, I'm not going to GM PFS2 at conventions -for the reward-, I'll do it if it's needed. I -will- gm PFS1 at a con -specifically for the reward-. If the difference is "get a race boon" vs "get 1/20th of a race boon" then I'll pick the first option any day. I'm not going to spend time writing up a report or even filling a blank table in the buggy reporting system for 2 or 3 points, my time is better spent elsewhere. And honestly, conventions are enough work to arrange already - as an organized I certainly don't want to spend extra time to report a couple of missing points.
PFS2 (convention) GM rewards are not worth the effort, amd unless the system is fundamentally changed (get a coupon code for a digital boon (race or otherwise), or something), whatever "consolidation" acp reward can be given to GM's for non-firing tables feels meaningless.
Yes, this. Say whatever you want about people's motivations to GM at Cons. The unintended result is that offering a reward of "1/20 of a race boon" is no reward at all, and will negatively impact our ability to recruit GM's - which means we'll have to offer fewer tables going forward. Is this really beneficial to the Organized Play campaign?
|
|
Yes, this. Say whatever you want about people's motivations to GM at Cons. The unintended result is that offering a reward of "1/20 of a race boon" is no reward at all, and will negatively impact our ability to recruit GM's - which means we'll have to offer fewer tables going forward. Is this really beneficial to the Organized Play campaign?
I don't know if you're wrong about the impact, but a few things to consider.
You don't need X number of DMs. You need Y number of [DM tables]. If you have 2 DMs running 5 games each or 10 Dms running 1 game each you have 10 DM tables. You might loose 3 DMs running one table, but have a 4th Dm run 3 tables instead of 1 because they want to get to that race boon faster.
(it occurs to me for high turnout times like friday and saterday night you get a bit more flex with the 10 one seaters)
I don't think the math works out to be 1/20th of a race boon. Especially if you do a reasonable 4 session.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMing a scenario gives you 8 AcP. GMing in a premium plus event gives you 12 AcP. The reward, thus, for GMing in a con is 4 acp. The cheapest race boons are going to be, according the blogpost, 80ACP so the con reward 4acp is equal to 1/20th of a raceboon.
For comparison, in 1e you can get an RSP boon for GMing 12 games. GMing in a con gives you 1 race boon. Of course, that same run doesn't give you 1 mark on your RSP sheet - con games don't count for RSP - but effectively the end result (getting a race boon) is the same as if you had GM'd 12 RSP games. 1e con games thus equal 12 non-con games, while 2e con games equal (at best) 1,5 non-con games (at best).
Remember also that not all cons are premium plus events. In fact, we don't yet know if all cons will be even premium events at all. Previously, I knew with confidence that if I can get 15 tables together, we'll have a con and get con rewards. Now? I've no idea if our microcon (16-18 tables or so) will even qualify as a premium event. So far, our GM's have mostly been a couple veterans, plus several new people who've tried GMing because they want a cool race boon. Those new people who try GMing? They can often be recruited later to run more games at regular gamedays too. Now? There's not much I can offer to entice new people to take up GMing - I can give a vague promise of "We MIGHT get an extra 2acp per game you run!" and I don't think anyone can argue against that being far less enticing than a whole new race boon.
This is especially true now that boons are (probably) not tradeable - I've gotten couple of new people to try GMing by giving them boons I've gotten from cons (online or IRL), that's no longer happening in 2e.
Also, there's probably a strong regional difference in cons, but 4 sessions in a con doesn't sound reasonable. I know I do that when I'm arranging the con and it's our small local con that we can barely pull together and I need to pull all the weight I can to make it happen, but a bigger event? Local big cons give you a free day for a game, free weekend for two. Running 4 games means that you'll be tied for the friday evening, nearly all of saturday, and a good chunk of sunday. Asking for 4+ sessions on a con that starts on friday afternoon and ends on sunday afternoon is basically asking them to work you for the whole event, with very little time for them to enjoy the event. I think that's unreasonable.
I also strongly dislike the earlier comments that show a dislike towards people who "GM just one game". They are volunteers. They make the con happen in the first place. Even if they run just 1 quest, you should be happy that you have someone running games for you, instead of criticizing them for "not doing more".
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
BNW is right about the table math, but there is another side to this.
The thing is... I think that a healthy GM ecosystem includes casual GMs. You want to have lots of people GMing small amounts so that your dedicated GMs do not burn out. Under the old system, I could get regulars to come out to a convention like Anime Detour and agree to GM 2-3 games a piece, which meant that I could GM 3-4 games at the convention and not burn out. In order to gear up for getting my guys to a convention, we would let them GM practice games at Dreamers for a month ahead of time. The promise of an easy race boon would get a whole bunch of players to try out GMing, and it often turned them into casual once-a-month GMs at Dreamers later on.
We need casual GMs. The ACP system is not exciting the casual GMs as much, and I do find that to be a problem.
Hmm
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to clarify that I totally agree that there should be a way to reward people who have signed up to GM but their game doesn't fire for no fault of their own - I agree - but I feel that discussing how to give those people 2 or 4 or 5 acp doesn't make a difference when there's a much greater disparity between 1e and 2e.
What happened that made the org play team devalue the effort and time of GMs so much? Does the org play team plan to change 1E convention boons to match: "Congrats for GMin in a con! If you'd now run 9 games more, you get a race boon!", or is there a reason why 2E GMs aren't appreciated as much? Do other regions somehow have an overflow of GMs? If so, please send a couple here, me and my 2 active GMs are slowly getting burned out.¨
EDIT: Wanted to add that I agree with HMM. Casual GM's take the workload off from the regular GM's, and keep the society alive. Every now and then, a regular GM has to step back for whatever reasons they may have, and having a pool of casual GMs means that one of those might be ready to step up and start GMing regularly.
If you don't have casual GMs, you suddenly just have one GM more. That means either less games, or larger workload on your remaining GM(s). In my view, everything that helps to get people to try GMing is a major boon to the system, and "easy" race boons are just that.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to repeat myself from earlier in the thread.
The solution to this problem is, to me, insanely simple and obvious.
Give out race boons in PFS2 at Cons AND allow race boons to be purchased with ACP.
So, EVERYBODY still gets to eventually play a new race but con GMs get that ability quicker and with more characters.
|
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What happened that made the org play team devalue the effort and time of GMs so much? Does the org play team plan to change 1E convention boons to match: "Congrats for GMin in a con! If you'd now run 9 games more, you get a race boon!", or is there a reason why 2E GMs aren't appreciated as much? Do other regions somehow have an overflow of GMs? If so, please send a couple here, me and my 2 active GMs are slowly getting burned out.¨
I don't see this as a conscious decision by leadership to devalue the effort. I think the desire was to move towards an online (ie less paper) solution. It is an expense for the organizers to print all the boons to handed out. An expense that is really not reimbursed. For larger cons (not talking premier cons), that expense can easily grow into the hundreds of dollars. I think what resulted is an untended consequence of a devalue of the effort.
Maybe the solution for 2e is to create a code, similar to what they do with certificates now, that would unlock a race boon once entered. Not sure what it would take to make that work within Paizo's IT structure however.
While a valid talking point, the focus of this thread is how to reward GMs for non-firing tables, not if the way of reward is fair or equal when compared to the other gaming systems.
|
|
GMing a scenario gives you 8 AcP. GMing in a premium plus event gives you 12 AcP. The reward, thus, for GMing in a con is 4 acp. The cheapest race boons are going to be, according the blogpost, 80ACP so the con reward 4acp is equal to 1/20th of a raceboon.
I don't think thats how the economics works out. This assumes that you're dming at a con instead of dming at your game store and that you're only DMing one game. I don't think that you can only look at the extra rewards for dming at a con and count that as the reward for dming at a con, as if dming for a game day took nothing.
If you're DMing 4 times at a convention thats 48 ACP so half > a race boon.
If you're dming 7 times at a convention that's a race boon and pocket change. So that's twice as fast as doing it for your RSP program AND you can do it in a weekend. (sleep is for the weak!)
For comparison, in 1e you can get an RSP boon for GMing 12 games. GMing in a con gives you 1 race boon. Of course, that same run doesn't give you 1 mark on your RSP sheet - con games don't count for RSP - but effectively the end result (getting a race boon) is the same as if you had GM'd 12 RSP games. 1e con games thus equal 12 non-con games, while 2e con games equal (at best) 1,5 non-con games (at best).
Except you're pretty unlikely to be able to run 7 or 4 RSP games in a weekend.
Also, there's probably a strong regional difference in cons, but 4 sessions in a con doesn't sound reasonable.
Friday sat sat sun , about half the games in most cons I've been to. And i get around. erm. to conventions.
I also strongly dislike the earlier comments that show a dislike towards people who "GM just one game". They are volunteers. They make the con happen in the first place. Even if they run just 1 quest, you should be happy that you have someone running games for you, instead of criticizing them for "not doing more".
I don't know what you're reading into it, but I don't dislike people Gming one game. I just don't think its the best datapoint for comparing "Dming at a con" vs "Dming at gamedays"
I'm not saying that pauljathome 's solution wouldn't be better, just that the arguments being made for ACP not working for cons is relying on a rather arbitrary assumption (only dming once), seeing dming at a game day as a zero cost thing, and only looking at the opportunity benefit instead of the benefit.
You could modify the system to
Regular con Double points
Premier Con: Double points and 1 race boon for showing up.
But again, I think a goal of the system is to keep the staff out of the boon certification business.
|
|
I don't know what you're reading into it, but I don't dislike people Gming one game.
He's not reading anything into your post. He's reading the explicit statements by other poster(s) up thread.
Some people cover more than one post in their responses, just as what follows has nothing to do with your last post.
As for the topic of focus s/p Tonya's statement and ignoring how I feel about the value of it, one way to determine how much AcP to award a folded table is the number of extra points they would have gotten for GMing at that venue: 2 AcP for Premier and 4 AcP for Premier+.
That way they can take their effort for the convention and add it on to the next regular game they GM.
Shouldn't have too many folded tables at Premier+ after GMs get called and reshuffled, I don't think but could be wrong. Hopefully, 4 AcP isn't enough to entice people to not volunteer to run a GM-less table.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just going to repeat myself from earlier in the thread.
The solution to this problem is, to me, insanely simple and obvious.
Give out race boons in PFS2 at Cons AND allow race boons to be purchased with ACP.
So, EVERYBODY still gets to eventually play a new race but con GMs get that ability quicker and with more characters.
Ancestry Boons discount codes?
|
Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha
|
Ancestry Boons discount codes?I'm just going to repeat myself from earlier in the thread.
The solution to this problem is, to me, insanely simple and obvious.
Give out race boons in PFS2 at Cons AND allow race boons to be purchased with ACP.
So, EVERYBODY still gets to eventually play a new race but con GMs get that ability quicker and with more characters.
Isn't a discount code the same as awarding more AcP?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMing a scenario gives you 8 AcP. GMing in a premium plus event gives you 12 AcP. The reward, thus, for GMing in a con is 4 acp. The cheapest race boons are going to be, according the blogpost, 80ACP so the con reward 4acp is equal to 1/20th of a raceboon.I don't think thats how the economics works out. This assumes that you're dming at a con instead of dming at your game store and that you're only DMing one game. I don't think that you can only look at the extra rewards for dming at a con and count that as the reward for dming at a con, as if dming for a game day took nothing.
If you're DMing 4 times at a convention thats 48 ACP so half > a race boon.
If you're dming 7 times at a convention that's a race boon and pocket change. So that's twice as fast as doing it for your RSP program AND you can do it in a weekend. (sleep is for the weak!)
Okay, 7 games in a convention seems (from my con experience) 1. impossible and 2. an unfair demand:
You're basically assuming that a volunteer runs:
A game at friday evening when the con starts (let's say 15.00 even though most folks on friday probably arrive after their work ends, so from 17.00 onwards) and another immediately afterwards. It's now midnight.
Next morning, start at 9 or 10 am, run 4 games non stop (plus a lunch break), stop running games aroud midnight.
Run 2 games on saturday, one from 9 or 10 and second on 14.00 and continue past the closing ceremony.
That's 7 games. I mean I guess that's technically possible but I hope nobody actually feels obligated to do that. Sure, if you enjoy GMing and you come to a con -just to GM- then go ahead, but I imagine most folks -also- want to see their friends, play a game, maybe take part in other con events too.
Obviously, the economics works differently depending on how you look at the event, but assuming that the reward is -more- than literally the extra reward you get for running in a con assumes you'd run the game several times anyway. Especially if you're assigned a game (and can't pick an evergreen), this might not be true. In fact, if we take the con games out of the vacuum, the rewards become even less meaningful.
Consider the following: I want to both play and run each adventure. (I'd prefer to play first and run it after that, but that's usually not possible). My options are:
Play scenario A: Then GM it in a con. Total points: 4+10=14 points (or 16 for premium plus but hey, that's not an option unless I fly to a big con).
Second option: Play scenario A at a con, then GM it locally. Points? 5+8, total of 13. 14 if it was a premium + event.
Suddenly, the reward for GMing in a con isn't 2 or 4 points, it's 1 or 2 points, and unless we're talking about a repeatable, this is probably the most likely scenario.
Back to topic: In the event that the OP team ends up giving ACP for non-firing tables, the ACP reward should probably be, at most, 1 or 2 acp for premium or premium plus cons. Otherwise you end up in a situtation where a GM is ready to run a table, table doesn't fire, GM goes to another table, and ends up getting more points (or as many points) as the GM who is actually running a game.
(unless, of course, you don't reward these points in the event that the GM finds a game to play, but it sounds overtly complicated to try and track if a random person is or is not playing at any given time.)
And that brings us back to the "setting up a system to reward 1 or 2 points when it takes you 80 to reach a race boon is, inevitably, not meaningful enough to warrant the work and effort.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In PFS2 races are earned via AcP. Under no circumstances should anyone get a race for GMing one PFS2 session at a con. I am all in favor of players and GMs earning AcP to acquire stuff such as races. That's the new system. This is not PFS1. That's the old system. They are not the same. Those who GM PFS2 at cons earn extra AcP. It's as simple as that.
As for the main point of the thread, what to do about situations where tables do not fire? That's going to be up to the coordinator of the con. One thing we want to prevent is the listing of too many sessions at any con. As for tables not firing, this may be a larger problem when we do start to have cons again due to completely justified fears of Covid-19. Of course, that is IF we have any cons this year which is doubtful the way things have been going. That may make this an issue for the Online Cons over the next year.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't a discount code the same as awarding more AcP?Ancestry Boons discount codes?I'm just going to repeat myself from earlier in the thread.
The solution to this problem is, to me, insanely simple and obvious.
Give out race boons in PFS2 at Cons AND allow race boons to be purchased with ACP.
So, EVERYBODY still gets to eventually play a new race but con GMs get that ability quicker and with more characters.
You can trade or gift away a discount code if you don't need one. Currently we have no knowledge of AcP being giftable.
Sure, if you want to move away from paper boons, I guess you can send the PDF in email. Considering that you are already printing chronicle sheets for the games though, I find it hard to believe that "handing out boons" grows into hundreds of dollars, unless you're using some super fancy paper or something. Checking the prices of local bookstores and electronics stores, paper costs 5-10 bucks for 500 sheets. You could even buy a new printer just for printing out GM boons and that'd come to 50-60 bucks. You could probably buy 2 new printers and 500 papers without going into three digit numbers in costs.
Under no circumstances should anyone get a race for GMing one PFS2 session at a con.
The two systems are being run by the same people, in the same con, for the same players, with the same amount of work required before, during, and after the game, using the same tools (dice, pen, paper, and a flipmat and minis). Is there a specific reason why you believe that one deserves less of a reward than the other?
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Under no circumstances should anyone get a race for GMing one PFS2 session at a con.The two systems are being run by the same people, in the same con, for the same players, with the same amount of work required before, during, and after the game, using the same tools (dice, pen, paper, and a flipmat and minis). Is there a specific reason why you believe that one deserves less of a reward than the other?
PF2 is an entirely different system. The reward system is different as well. One of the goals behind PFS2 is to avoid the larger problems that plagued PFS1. The scads of boons for PFS1 was a problem. It is time to adopt a different system of rewards that does not result in a glut of other things that cheapens the reward system.
PFS1 is PFS1. PFS2 is an entirely different system.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Under no circumstances should anyone get a race for GMing one PFS2 session at a con.The two systems are being run by the same people, in the same con, for the same players, with the same amount of work required before, during, and after the game, using the same tools (dice, pen, paper, and a flipmat and minis). Is there a specific reason why you believe that one deserves less of a reward than the other?PF2 is an entirely different system. The reward system is different as well. One of the goals behind PFS2 is to avoid the larger problems that plagued PFS1. The scads of boons for PFS1 was a problem.
PFS1 is PFS1. PFS2 is an entirely different system.
You aren't making any sense. What do you mean by large amount of boons? Do you refer to the number of boons printed for a con, number of different boons available, or the number of boons a single GM might have? First one can be solved by moving into a paperless option (PDF, for example), second can be solved by limiting the kinds of boons that are available. Third one requires some more explaining, how exactly is it a problem that people have multiple boons?
It is time to adopt a different system of rewards that does not result in a glut of other things that cheapens the reward system.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you saying that because boons were so easy to get, they no longer felt like an actual reward (that is, their value was cheapened by the quantity of released boons)? If you feel that the boons were not enough of a reward because of how plentiful they are, how can you defend a system where the GM's get -even less- of a reward?
PFS1 is PFS1. PFS2 is an entirely different system.
GMs are still GMs, and deserve to be treated equally, regardless of what system they are running. Unless, of course, you want people to move from one system to another and thus want to reward that system more. However, given that PFS1 no longer receives new products and PFS2 is what is supposed to be supported and hopefully even grow as a community, it seems weird to tell those GMs that they should probably move to an older system if they want an actual reward of some kind for their investment of time and effort.
Edit: I'd like to add that you keep bringing up that PFS1 and PFS2 are entirely different systems. They are not. They have much, much more in common than they have in difference. True, PF1 and PF2 are, from purely technical point of view, different rule systems - both use D20 and some similar language, but mechanically they are different in Rules system. However, that's a small part of the pfSOCIETY ecosystem. The systems have the same company that makes them. They are set in the same world. They are run by the same people. They are played and GM'd largely by the same players and GM's. They both fill the same gaming niche, tell the same kind of stories, feature the same characters, and are played in a fashion that makes you unable to distinguish a table of PFS1 from PFS2 unless you get to take a look at the character sheet or hear a speficic mechanical phrase or rule mentioned - they are, for all intents and purposes aside from the actual rule system, nearly identical. A casual observer would not notice a difference, just like I wouldn't know the difference between 5th and 15th edition of MtG or WH40k.
The idea, then, that "running this game gives me a paper/pdf that let's me make a leshy character, while running this game gives me a small part of what I need to make a leshy character" is somehow justifiable with "they are different" is absurd.
And EVEN IF, for some reason, you truly believe that PFS1 and PFS2 are so different that it's okay to give interesting rewards to PFS1 GMs and give peanuts for PFS2 GMs, don't you think it would be better for the growth of PFS2, to give rewards that are actually enticing?