Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why would they move to an older unsupported system when they could be earning AcP in the newer and supported system? All you need to do is change your mindset from gimmee, gimmee to one that is more altruistic.
I've got a pile of PFS1 boons that I never used. Not to mention that PFS1 turned into a mess with all the extra options from boons that just generated more and more power which left the game not so fun to run. PFS2 is well balanced and I want to keep it that way. You want the race options? Earn them.
That brings up the other point. A lot of people were unable to go to the big cons and earn the rarer race boons. PFS1 had no solution to that glaringly large problem. In PFS2, players and GMs can earn AcP so that they can attain the playing of all legal races and options. GMs are earning twice as many AcP as a player is. That is a substantially large sum of points.
What you really should be complaining about is the number of points it takes to purchase something with the AcP.
|
Okay, 7 games in a convention seems (from my con experience) 1. impossible and 2. an unfair demand
Its not a demand. There's also nothing that says you can't make 7 games over 2 conventions or 4 games at a con and 8 in a store or what have you.
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
This absolutely does not follow at all. There is no connection between these two ideas. I run a game at a con i get x points. Thats the reward. You cannot simply assume that the extra is the entire reward: that does not track at all. If a farmer gets 10 dollars an hour and a lumberjack gets 15 dollars an hour the lumberjack is not suddenly getting 5 dollars an hour.
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:
D: bite the bullet and run the same scenario multiple times. You can't evaluate a program wide reward system based on how its going to work for your exact plan. No one is saying you can't or that you won't get rewarded for running the same game again.
If you run bunnies and burrows twice at the game store your result is 8 ACP.
If you run bunnies and burrows twice at gencon you get 24 ACP
If you run bunnies and burrows twice at a game store and twice at gencon your result is 32 ACP
No matter what you do, your reward for the con is 24 ACP. Its completely orthogonal to your reward for DMIng the game day Subtracting the game day from the con makes zero sense.
And look at your end result. You want to tell me that running one game at a convention one time is worth running TWELVE game day games? AT smaller place meeting bi weekly thats dming for 6 months straight.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: was typing that while you were editing your message. But my point still holds as well.
BNW - Your numbers are way off. GMing a game is 8 AcP. GMing at an RSP location is 10 AcP. GMing at a normal convention is 10 AcPs. GMing at (as far as have been announced) one of 4 premier plus events (PaizoCon, Gencon, Origins, and I think PaizoCon UK) is 12 AcPs.
GMing 7 games at a local convention is the same reward as GMing 7 games at an RSP location. 70 AcP, which still isn’t enough for an 80 AcP boon.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A public service announcement..
Great discussion but not much on the the topic of the post. Please keep to the topic or I will ask that this thread get locked.
Feel free to start a new thread with a different topic.
Thank you.
Please resume you regularly scheduled gaming...
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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).
This is not at all an uncommon viewpoint. And it's a major reason why it can be such a struggle to get GMs for conventions. Even the areas that have two or three regular GMs who prefer running scenarios they haven't played can't cover every table at a con with those GMs. In most places offering some form of incentive is the only way to get all the tables covered.
We know that physical boons are going away and being replaced by ACP. (I posted a link to the blog where the OP team explains their reasons back on page 2.) Increased ACP for convention GMs takes the place of physical boons.
If a GM volunteers for a convention, preps a new scenario, then through no fault of her own doesn't have her table(s) make - how do I convince her that she should volunteer for the next convention? I used to have the physical boon as a reward. Giving out some ACP for a non-firing table means at least it wasn't a total waste of her time.
Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Turku
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, I'll spoiler most of my post to avoid cluttering the thread because a good majority of it is in reply, and not exactly on topic.
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 anywayThis absolutely does not follow at all. There is no connection between these two ideas. I run a game at a con i get x points. Thats the reward. You cannot simply assume that the extra is the entire reward: that does not track at all. If a farmer gets 10 dollars an hour and a lumberjack gets 15 dollars an hour the lumberjack is not suddenly getting 5 dollars an hour.
But the extra is the reward -for running it in a con-. Con GMing is different from regular game days - in addition to the usual prep, you're running it probably to people you don't know, with strict time limit, in a place that you aren't familiar with, on a day and slot you may not have been able to choose yourself, in a noisy and disturbance-prone environment, a scenario that you may not have chosen yourself for PC's you don't know, having very likely traveled there for a good while longer than your usual gameday location and having arranged lodgings for yourself, possibly missing other con stuff that you would have been interested in while running.
8 ACP you get for GMing a scenario, regardless of location. All those extra circumstances in a con are what gives you an extra 2 or 4 ACP.
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:D: bite the bullet and run the same scenario multiple times. You can't evaluate a program wide reward system based on how its going to work for your exact plan. No one is saying you can't or that you won't get rewarded for running the same game again.
What are you even rambling about :'D
Firstly, aside from a couple of outliers (namely, the few big cons that draw 100+ tables or something), why would you want a GM to run the same adventure twice in the same con? Sure, it's easier to prep a scenario once and run it twice than prep two different scenarios and run both once, but spreading scenarios to different GMs means that the GM can both run the scenario and then play it when another GM runs it.In regular game days, it makes even less sense to run the same scenario twice by the same GM - you're effectively robbing someone else the chance to earn a chronicle for GMing the scenario, and possibly shooting yourself in the leg if there aren't enough people for a third run and you don't get to play it all XD
Scenarios should be, when possible, spread among as many GMs as possible to ensure everybody has a chance to play it, and as many GMs can earn a sheet for GMing as possible.
I say Bite the Bullet and run and prep a different scenario instead, that's more beneficial to both you And the community as a whole.
(also, BNW, you're a 5star GM. I'm missing just the evaluation game from gaining my 5th star too. We've both run 150+ tables worth of games. Duplicates from those are probably a handful aside from some favorites (dead man's debt <3) and couple of evergreens. It seems unlikely the 150+ games would include just 50 unique games, each ran 3+ times - Running a scenario once and playing it once is probably far closer to the norm, but of course this may depend on locale and maybe actual stats might prove that I'm the weird one when I don't usually run the same scenario several times.)
And look at your end result. You want to tell me that running one game at a convention one time is worth running TWELVE game day games? AT smaller place meeting bi weekly thats dming for 6 months straight.
Actually, no. I don't agree that running one game at a convention should be rewarded equally to 12 games locally, at least not generally speaking - but that's what the organized play has decided that the rewards were for first edition, and I'm criticizing the big difference between 1e rewards and 2e rewards. (Granted, RSP boon also gives a smaller benefit on 6 games run so it's not exactly 1 race equals 1 race).
I feel that we need something to entice new GM's, something to draw in people to volunteer for cons, and an actual reward that they can point at and say "I got this for GMing at [con]", be it sheet of paper that says "leshy boon", or a PDF that says "One use Breath of Life", or a custom poker chip that acts as a hero point, or even a coupon code for a "download your own race boon", works a lot better than an intangible "+2 points".
Looking for a way to reward GMs even if the table doesn't fire is good, but unless we can get GMs to come in the first place, there won't be that many non-firing tables. I strongly believe that solving the larger issue of GM incentive/reward is 1. more important and 2. depending on solution, may result in solving the issue of non-firing tables at the same time.
Yes, I've organized 3 very small conventions (literally just PFS games, 15-18 tables worth, and pratically speaking just because I wanted to open up the option to earn race boons for our local players too - I've also travelled to GM at cons 600+ km's away just to earn a race boon I really wanted, so my view is probably strongly influenced by my own desire to have "shiny stuff". I admit that I may not have a good grasp on the differences between organizing a small event, medium sized event, and a super large event, but if you want to discuss these things without cluttering this thread, feel free to PM me or catch me in discord on the Org Play channel or VO channel!)
Also, thank you Kevin, for the link. I had missed that earlier, and it helps clarify OP's goal and vision of the AcP.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
This may come down to what the con organizers want to award the GMs for coming. Org Play is going to do something as already denoted (bonus AcP) and could maybe do more for AcP awarded for running at a con or lower the purchase costs of things via AcP. What about the cons themselves? They have a vested interest in GMs coming as well.
Back to the main point of the thread. I wouldn't mind if Org Play awarded the bonus AcP for the con for a table that didn't fire, but I would definitely make a note to see how many didn't fire. Last thing we want is for cons to have a lot of misfiring tables with AcP given because that would indicate poor planning or outright falsification of reporting.
The next thing is to see how many tables the GM ran. Do we award bonus AcP for two non-fired tables to a GM who also ran 2 tables and played during the sessions their tables didn't fire? What if one of the non-fired tables was a scenario that the GM ran in another session at the same con? I think we're getting kind of complicated with the What If's for something that really should be kept simple.
I suppose this is something that the Org Play con organizer will need to request from OP management when they submit their AAR. I think it is something we should implement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the extra is the reward -for running it in a con-.
Here is the entire problem with the way you're evaluating this. You're equivocating between (the reward) and (the extra reward). They are absolutely not the same thing.
The way you get them to be the same thing is by claiming that you only run the same game once.
For YOU they are the same thing because you won't run the same game twice (either at the same con, or at your game day and then at a con). That is not the same as them being the same thing. Most DMs I know run the same game at least twice. My personal preference for running something at a convention is to run it locally/online to work the kinks out and to be sure I know the scenario. In fact I go out of my way to schedule something if i know I'm running it at a con.
I think you're the outlier here, and evaluating a program for what it does for just you isn't the best datapoint
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there is an outlier. In order for there to be an outlier, there has to be a consensus way that things work. There isn't, but the rewards are being treated like there is, and that's where the problem comes in. A big area has plenty of GMs volunteering, so they don't see the need for a reward that will entice more GMs. A certain group of GMs doesn't mind running games in 4, 5, 6, or more slots at a convention, so they don't understand why others might not want to do that. Another group of GMs doesn't care about the rewards at all. But there are also GMs who only prefer to run 1 session at a convention, because maybe they can only attend one day, or who were planning to attend the convention as a player and not GM at all, but might be willing to run a game to get something small but cool. There are areas that cannot continue to run enough tables to qualify for any support without having a few GMs step in to run single tables. That is the way every convention within a 3 hour driving distance of me is. Here, a convention that doesn't need casual GMs is the outlier.
Now, when we had enough players that we could offer multiple sessions of the same scenario, having a single GM run that game multiple times was one of the ways that we convinced people to run more games. Because it means less prep time for them. Instead of having to prep 3 different scenarios, they only had to prep 1. That was my experience at my first con (edit: first time GMing PFS at a con, not first con ever). I ran the same scenario 3 times.
Currently, none of the cons within 3 hours has enough attendance by players to run 3 sessions of the same scenario over a weekend, unless it's a repeatable. Generally we can't fill 2 sessions of the same scenario. If we want to fill 15 tables, we need to run mostly different scenarios and at least 2 systems (PFS1 and 2).
I don't particularly care if PFS2 offers ancestry boons to GMs or not. I would, however, like to see it offer something other than an equal reward to what a GM already gets at their RSP location.
People have brought up incentives that the convention offers... but those are incentives to GM at the convention, not incentives to GM Pathfinder Society at the conventions. Paizo is the group with the most to gain by incentivizing people to GM their game. Things like early registrations for games, reduced fees or free admittance to the con, free hotel rooms, etc. are not things that PFS organizers generally control (and by extension, out of Paizo's control) at many of the conventions where PFS takes place. Those things are handled by the convention itself and may or may not exist.
Whether Paizo provides a boon, or a gift certificate, or a minor bump (or no bump) in AcPs. or a free hero point at a future game, or whatever, is something that Paizo can control. If they want to help grow their own game, they can provide something to help their volunteers bring in more volunteers. The small AcP bump, which may not even exist in some cases, just doesn't feel like it's going to accomplish that. It's more of a small thank you to the people who were already willing to volunteer than it is something that could be used to increase the volunteer pool in an area. Which may explain why so many people who already volunteer a lot don't see a problem.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think there is an outlier
None of the issues you have listed here are what I called an outlier. What I called an outlier was evaluating the program under the idea that you would only run a game once: not the game once at a convention, once at all. That somehow running a game at a convention means you won't run it locally or vice versa.
That entirely personal restriction vastly changes the math on what DMing at a con will get you, and is NOT a good or even valid way to compare a program wide rewards program. Whether you decide the rewards are enough after considering them realistically is one thing, but evaluating the rewards as ONLY the increase over a game day makes absolutely no sense.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the consideration you are arguing against is the wrong one.
It is not, "Will I ever GM this scenario again? No, so I should be rewarded."
It is, "Do I want to GM at this convention?" No matter if it's a scenario you've never run or run a dozen times or will run it a dizen times in the future.
That's the whole point of incentivizing GMs. Maybe where you are everybody loves to GMs at conventions. I know it's not true where I am and doubt it's true everywhere but here.
|
|
I believe the consideration you are arguing against is the wrong one.
It is not, "Will I ever GM this scenario again? No, so I should be rewarded."
It is, "Do I want to GM at this convention?" No matter if it's a scenario you've never run or run a dozen times or will run it a dizen times in the future.
That's the whole point of incentivizing GMs. Maybe where you are everybody loves to GMs at conventions. I know it's not true where I am and doubt it's true everywhere but here.
I'm not arguing for or against the conclusion.
I'm asking that the arguments for and against the conclusion be fair and objective.
How Tompaa argued for increasing the incentives was by considering the extra incentives as the entire incentive, which only works IF you won't DM a scenario twice.(and is a little iffy even then)
Follow?
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I believe the consideration you are arguing against is the wrong one.
It is not, "Will I ever GM this scenario again? No, so I should be rewarded."
It is, "Do I want to GM at this convention?" No matter if it's a scenario you've never run or run a dozen times or will run it a dizen times in the future.
That's the whole point of incentivizing GMs. Maybe where you are everybody loves to GMs at conventions. I know it's not true where I am and doubt it's true everywhere but here.
I'm not arguing for or against the conclusion.
I'm asking that the arguments for and against the conclusion be fair and objective.
How Tompaa argued for increasing the incentives was by considering the extra incentives as the entire incentive, which only works IF you won't DM a scenario twice.(and is a little iffy even then)
Follow?
I'm still not sure what you're getting at. Why should it matter whether or not you're going to run the adventure again?
Is the argument that you haven't wasted your prep time?
Or is it that you get the scenario for free? Which, count me a pessimist on this, but scenario support has been practically nonexistent for all but the biggest conventions I've been involved in for several years. Hopefully that's changing with Alex's hiring, but we'll see. At this point, I don't count the scenario as a reward to the GM, because GMs generally end up either having to buy it or someone has to buy it for them in order for them to actually have time to prep the scenario.
Either way, you've spent whatever money it takes to spend to get to the convention. You've sat there waiting to see if you have players. I don't see how the possibility that you may GM the game at some later date has much to do with the time and expense you committed to that convention.
EDIT: I'll add to my list of non-outliers that a casual GM may not GM enough to ever run something more than once. I also know plenty of GMs that pretty much only ever GM something that they can get a chronicle for. Again, assuming that the way that you do things is the norm and someone who does things differently is an outlier is at the heart of much of what is happening in this thread. There are all sorts of GMs who do what they do for their own reasons. They are all volunteering time to the campaign, so shouldn't be portrayed as lesser just because they don't contribute in the same way someone else does. We need all the volunteers we can get, and they don't all have to end up 5-star or 5-glyph GMs.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I went back and read Tompaa's messages. I believe that maybe I understand what you're trying to say.
Tompaa is, to my reading, arguing that the "extra" reward you get for GMing at a CON is 1 or 2 AcP (or 2 or 4) vs GMing locally.
You are pointing out that the reward that you get for GMing at a con is 10 or 12 AcP, and that doesn't stop you from also GMing it locally? Meaning the "extra" part is the chance to run a session that you wouldn't have otherwise run.
True, however, if you have the option to run it locally, the 1 or 2 (or 2 or 4) extra points isn't terribly convincing to get you to instead run it at a con. That, I think, is the point that most of the people in this thread have been trying to make.
What scenario you're running, or whether you ever run it more than once, doesn't really matter, since the AcPs rewarded have nothing to do with the scenario you run (quest vs scenario vs module aside). On any given weekend, could I stay in my local area and run a game? Most weekends, yes. Could I run one online? Most days, yes. My reward for doing so is going to be 8 or 10 AcPs. I could do that anytime instead of attending a con to run a game.
So a convention is coming up out of state, and they need someone to come in and fill a table. My reward for doing so, over and above what I could get by just running a scenario at home, is 2 or 4 AcPs.
That is not enough to convince anyone to go GM at a con. If they're going to the con for other reasons (they just like cons, they want to be able to play several games, they just love GMing, whatever) it's a nice bonus. It is not helpful in recruiting GMs for a con who would not otherwise be attending.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
Looks like the con needs to do something to draw the GMs then. The AcP is a reaction to the reality that those who cannot attend cons do not get an opportunity to earn the boons. Under the AcP, they do. This addresses the inequality of the system. Those who attend the cons are gaining extra AcP which accelerates their ability to purchase higher cost things in the system.
Really, if you're driving to a different state (and I don't know your mileage for that geography, but for me I've got an hour drive just to go to my local game one direction and two in another. The nearest con that I'm not organizing is closer to 3 hours of travel from me) you should be getting something from the con itself, not Org Play.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So this thread appears to be have run its course.
What I gather from the discussion:
1) Yes, GMs should be rewarded if the table they prepared to run does not fire.
2) This reward should only be for Cons and not for tables that are part of a regular game day.
3) The level of reward should be reasonable in an attempt to incentivize people to step up and GM.
4) Leadership is aware and appears to be developing "something".
Thank you all for your discussion.
To our esteemed admins, can this thread be locked now as it appears to come to a natural finish.
Thank you,
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gary, I appreciate that you’ve gotten the answers you were looking for. Threads don’t typically get locked when the OP gets the answer to their question. They get locked when they devolve into insults and personal attacks, which, amazingly, this thread seems to have largely avoided.
The conversation has evolved beyond the original question, because Tonya addressed the original question. But it is still about a related issue.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like the con needs to do something to draw the GMs then. The AcP is a reaction to the reality that those who cannot attend cons do not get an opportunity to earn the boons. Under the AcP, they do. This addresses the inequality of the system. Those who attend the cons are gaining extra AcP which accelerates their ability to purchase higher cost things in the system.
No convention is sending people to local game days to convince someone to come GM at their convention. It’s been the job of the PFS organizer to round up GMs for PFS since PFS has existed. Paizo used to provide things to help them do that. They increasingly don’t, now. That will affect the ability to do so.
I’ll repeat... the AcP reward for GMing a game at your RSP location is exactly the same as the AcP reward for GMing at your local convention. No 15-20 table local convention is going to be labeled as a premier plus convention. They are going to grant 10 AcPs, same as an RSP game.
Yes, the AcP system addressed the disparity in access to boons. That is a good thing. I haven’t seen people here claiming otherwise. In doing so, it also removed an incentive that existed for GMs to GM at conventions. That has an affect on our ability to recruit GMs for conventions.
Really, if you're driving to a different state (and I don't know your mileage for that geography, but for me I've got an hour drive just to go to my local game one direction and two in another. The nearest con that I'm not organizing is closer to 3 hours of travel from me) you should be getting something from the con itself, not Org Play.
In some regards I’m a little more fortunate than you, then. In others likely less so. There are two game shops within an hour of me. (More, but only two that have PFS regularly). The nearest convention is about the same. The farthest convention I consider “local” is about 3 hours and three states over. In reality, though, no one from my area attends that anymore.
There are four conventions that generally see PFS attend and get support. One offers reduced admittance for GMing one game. Two others offer free admittance for running 3 games. The fourth I’m not sure about, because it’s been so long since anyone from here has gone. I think it’s free admittance for 3 games.
That’s it as far as what the conventions offer, and that’s not going to change. If we want a PFS presence at those conventions, then we have to organize it. The most we’re going to get from them is an email asking if we’re coming this year.
None of those areas can run 15 tables in a weekend without bringing in players and GMs from another state. Is the suggestion that PFS shouldn’t support those conventions at all, because they are too small? If the feeling is that it doesn’t matter where the games are played (which is reflected in the weighting of the AcP), and Paizo no longer sees small, local conventions as a recruitment opportunity, then we can stop spending our time and energy organizing games for them.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
They can get support. It seems as if the cons expect Org Play to do the rewarding for GMs. What do other Org Play systems do?
I don't think this has removed an incentive. The RSP seems to be coming from those who place an emphasis on that. To make it happen, they put it the same as cons. I thought that we should have 4 categories with regular GMing, RSP, Cons, and premier cons. I still think we should have 4 categories just like that and put the points at 8, 10, 12, and 16.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They can get support. It seems as if the cons expect Org Play to do the rewarding for GMs. What do other Org Play systems do?
I don't think this has removed an incentive. The RSP seems to be coming from those who place an emphasis on that. To make it happen, they put it the same as cons. I thought that we should have 4 categories with regular GMing, RSP, Cons, and premier cons. I still think we should have 4 categories just like that and put the points at 8, 10, 12, and 16.
That would at least be something, though I just don't think that any small increase in RSP is going to be a valuable tool for recruiting a GM who wasn't going to GM anyway.
As for other org play systems, largely they are not being run at those conventions. Certainly not 15 tables of them. One of them has an Adventurer's League presence (or did the last time I attended). A lot of that group split off from the PFS crowd, including a former VC for that area.
|
|
True, however, if you have the option to run it locally, the 1 or 2 (or 2 or 4) extra points isn't terribly convincing to get you to instead run it at a con. That, I think, is the point that most of the people in this thread have been trying to make.
Instead is the problem with this argument. Under what circumstances are you running at a con instead of running at the store? If you're running 1 game at the con and you would be running one game at home (or if in Tompass case, running at the con means you don't run it at home)
Otherwise games are "in addition to". Not instead of. In addition to means that your points are straight up added to what you're getting.
If people are observing that they can't get enough PFS2 DMs its possible there aren't enough rewards. It's also possible that
-DMing PFS2 isn't as fun as playing it
-the players have come in made the switch but the DM corps hasn't. (which wouldn't be surprising, a lot of the old guard DMs wouldn't switch from 3.5)
-Fewer people feel they have enough familiarity with the system to DM
-There aren't enough scenarios to get people interested in going to a con. Folks have played everything. As opposed to PFS1s years of backlogs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
True, however, if you have the option to run it locally, the 1 or 2 (or 2 or 4) extra points isn't terribly convincing to get you to instead run it at a con. That, I think, is the point that most of the people in this thread have been trying to make.
Instead is the problem with this argument. Under what circumstances are you running at a con instead of running at the store? If you're running 1 game at the con and you would be running one game at home (or if in Tompass case, running at the con means you don't run it at home)
Otherwise games are "in addition to". Not instead of. In addition to means that your points are straight up added to what you're getting.
Under the circumstance that I can get a race boon for running the game at a convention. That has been the deciding factor for me several times. That circumstance doesn't exists for PFS2, so I will choose to run the game at home instead of spending money and driving several hours. Again, not saying that ancestry boons need to be handed out, but going from "here's a thing you can only get at a convention" to "There's no difference in what you get at a convention vs. what you get at home" is a pretty drastic shift.
If people are observing that they can't get enough PFS2 DMs its possible there aren't enough rewards. It's also possible that
-DMing PFS2 isn't as fun as playing it
-the players have come in made the switch but the DM corps hasn't. (which wouldn't be surprising, a lot of the old guard DMs wouldn't switch from 3.5)
-Fewer people feel they have enough familiarity with the system to DM
-There aren't enough scenarios to get people interested in going to a con. Folks have played everything. As opposed to PFS1s years of backlogs.
All of those things are true. Which is why it would be nice to have something to offer the GMs to help overcome those hurdles or convince them to finally try making the switch.
|
|
Under the circumstance that I can get a race boon for running the game at a convention.
.....?
No.
I realize people are upset by this but that's not a logical reply to the question that was asked. You can't just reply "race boon" every time someone says something.
People are also doing a bit of equivocation here, with "running at a convention" equally refering to "running a game" to "running 3-4 games" to "not sleeping and running all 7 slots"
Running 7 games at a convention will get you a race boon. Running 4 slots will get you half a race boon+. If you think thats too many games, argue the multiplier should be higher or that raceboons are too expensive. Not "i can do the same thing just staying home" because you can't. YOu can't rack up 40 or 70 points in one weekend staying home. (unless you're setting up couch con or something)
|
|
You absolutely can get 40 AcPs in a weekend, and plenty of people have done exactly what you joked about and set up their own “cons” where they run 5-7 games in a weekend. Those would be at 8 AcPs, not 10, but you can pretty much do that anytime you aren’t competing with an online convention or one of the premier events. There’s no shortage of players online. If you offer a game, you will find people to join at least as easily as you will at a small convention.
You asked for a circumstance in which I would choose to attend a con to GM a game instead of just doing so from home. I gave an example where I made that exact decision.
The opportunity to run a game is not a reward. The opportunity to run a game always exists.
|
|
Gary, I appreciate that you’ve gotten the answers you were looking for. Threads don’t typically get locked when the OP gets the answer to their question. They get locked when they devolve into insults and personal attacks, which, amazingly, this thread seems to have largely avoided.
The conversation has evolved beyond the original question, because Tonya addressed the original question. But it is still about a related issue.
Ferious,
While I agree with you, I dislike the conversations that are happening past the original topic I proposed. Go open a new thread to have a conversation like I did when I started this thread.
Because the current discussion is related, but not specific, to the topic of the thread, it makes it difficult for people to try and track down things in the future. If it was not for the some of the great people on this forum, you included, tracking down the history in the threads would be next to impossible.
I have asked people to move the conversation to a new thread but people have chosen to ignore that request. This personal annoys me but since I have not control, I just keep pushing my desire.
I can ask for the thread to be locked. We will see if it happens.
|
|
I see the discussion as related, because it pertains to how much of a reward someone should be given if their table falls through, which is something that Tonya asked us to discuss. Rather than granting someone a small amount of AcP, I would like to see there be an additional, currently not existing reward for GMs at conventions, which could both be used to draw in additional, casual GMs, and which could be given as compensation when a table doesn't fire. It does not have to be at the level of an ancestry boon, but it should be more significant than a 2 AcP bump for a game if we have any hope of it being meaningful to anyone.
|
|
Agree it is related. However, I see you continue to ignore what I say I want to continue your point.
Usually it is at this point that things start to get heated because feelings start to enter into the discussion instead of just staying with the topic.
But it is not worth the effort to push back. The discussion is good. Just not what I think it should be for the thread I created.
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Columbia
|
I think this is devolving into a struggle between those that want a race boon for GMing at a con versus those who want races gated behind AcP.
I have never liked it where a GM got a race boon for showing up to run one session. I am firmly on the side of races being gated behind AcP. It is a far more equitable system.
Can the points be adjusted? Yes as I stated above.
Can the prices for stuff to be purchased be adjusted? Certainly.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is devolving into a struggle between those that want a race boon for GMing at a con versus those who want races gated behind AcP.
Yes, the AcP system addressed the disparity in access to boons. That is a good thing. I haven’t seen people here claiming otherwise. In doing so, it also removed an incentive that existed for GMs to GM at conventions. That has an affect on our ability to recruit GMs for conventions.
Again, not saying that ancestry boons need to be handed out, but going from "here's a thing you can only get at a convention" to "There's no difference in what you get at a convention vs. what you get at home" is a pretty drastic shift.
Whether Paizo provides a boon, or a gift certificate, or a minor bump (or no bump) in AcPs. or a free hero point at a future game, or whatever, is something that Paizo can control. If they want to help grow their own game, they can provide something to help their volunteers bring in more volunteers. The small AcP bump, which may not even exist in some cases, just doesn't feel like it's going to accomplish that. It's more of a small thank you to the people who were already willing to volunteer than it is something that could be used to increase the volunteer pool in an area. Which may explain why so many people who already volunteer a lot don't see a problem.
I haven't seen anyone demanding race boons for several pages of this thread. There is plenty of room between 2AcP and Race boon to find something that could be offered to help recruit GMs and to offer when a table doesn't make, and I and others have said that numerous times. Things keep getting compared to the race boon, because that is the reward that was previously offered, and we know how effective it was. It would be great if we could find something in-between those two options instead of the side that is pointing out that 2 extra AcPs is not a real incentive being portrayed as demanding ancestry boons, when that is not the case.
Can the points be adjusted? Yes as I stated above.
Can the prices for stuff to be purchased be adjusted? Certainly.
Until we're talking about something like double the AcP for GMing at a con, I just don't think any amount of AcPs is ever going to be a real incentive to convince someone to GM at a con when they weren't already going to. I don't even know if double the AcP would do it. The draw of the convention boons was that you could only get them at conventions. That was also part of the problem with equity. We need something that is both different enough from the AcP rewards so that it's a real incentive to GM at a convention, but not unique, so that people who can't make conventions don't feel left out.
A place to start is a Paizo gift coupon. There is already a system in place to generate those. Paizo already gives them out per session for things like PaizoCon. They could give one per GM to smaller conventions (with some kind of limit). $5 or $10 off a Paizo product isn't as good of a benefit as what the race boons used to be, but it's better than a small number of AcPs. It's also not something I think a lot of people would complain about conventions getting that they can't. And it's something to differentiate games at an RSP location from games at a convention. I don't really know if that would convince anyone to GM that wasn't going to the convention in the first place, but it would help when tables don't make or to convince someone who was going to be there to GM for a slot.
Obviously it costs money, but hopefully Paizo can see it as advertising. We used to have things like physical products for table rewards, copies of the paperback novels, posters that we could put up to help draw people over to the tables, and things like that. Those were all replaced with the gift coupons for player rewards, so this would be an extension of that. It's not ideal, but if an in-game reward is going to be a problem, then this would be an alternative to look at.