Game Master Rewards

In order to encourage Game Masters...


Upon the successful completion of a mission, a Game Master will be awarded a number of GM Credits equal to the number of months he ran the game (Rounded up in most cases). These Credits can be spent in the following ways:

-2 Credits can be spent to earn 1 Power Point on a character. This can only be spent when you could otherwise spend Power Points (Between Missions, or durring a mission when you are given some PP awards).

-1 Credit can be spent to give you 2 Hero Points on your current mission.

Credits for missions are awarded or not awarded by the Judge as follows:
-Mission completed - Credits awarded.
-Mission was extremely slow or paused for a significant time - Time may be deducted from the credit award, Judge makes final decision.
-Mission was canceled with no warning (GM went absent without telling anyone) - No credit
-Mission was canceled with warning, or turned over to another GM - Credit for months run awarded once mission is completed.
-Mission was canceled due to player loss - Full credits awarded.
-Mission was canceled for other reasons - As ruled by the Judge.

Basicly, if you keep your mission running, you're good to go. If you need to drop, please give the judge/players some warning, and we can try to hand off the mission to another GM/Judge.


-------------------------

Comments? Questions? Suggestions?

sounds good to me. That would encourage me to try and come with something to run eventually. Still reading everything though and it wouldn't be super soon I'm afraid. Kinda busy IRL.

Seems quite ok. Only thing, what is the speed of evolution we expect from a character? 1 PP per two credits can be reasonnable as it can be a lot. I would not like to see a character that evolve faster if just boosted by credit than if he just play.

For the credit for HP, it seems fine.

We should be earning about 1 PP per month of play, so the 1/2 rate for GMs seems fair.

I found a little discussion on the matter. It's fine with me, I would only limit the expenditure of them on a character for PP to prevent a master to raise abusively his character after having mastering many mission at once. Something like:

• A character cannot gain more PP for character than he has earn in mission since his creation.

That way, we still get sure the character will have some IC evolution.

My only worry about that is that it penalizes a new player who isn't in a game yet (Like Salix), and it's not his fault there's not another adventure. I don't see it as an issue outside of the game, mostly because If it happens, the character hasn't been in a game yet anyway, and it's not going to get abusive till a gamemaster has run, what, 2 years of games?

Or, say for example, I decide to create a new hero, because either my old one died, or is simply no longer fun. Why can't I use some of my GM credits to boost him up a bit?

I realy don't see it as a problem, mostly because as the universe expands in time, more experienced heroes may be joining anyway.

Bront said:

My only worry about that is that it penalizes a new player who isn't in a game yet (Like Salix), and it's not his fault there's not another adventure.

Click to expand...

Yeah, but once he gets in a game, he advances at the rate of 2 PP for every PP his character earns until he spends all his DM credits. That seems like reward enough for me.

You got a point Bront, but that suggestion is to prevent someone to see a master boosting one character abusively (and you are right, it's not tomorrow we will see that, but I try to see in long term) and to encourage a spread of the GM credit among characters.

Velmont said:

You got a point Bront, but that suggestion is to prevent someone to see a master boosting one character abusively (and you are right, it's not tomorrow we will see that, but I try to see in long term) and to encourage a spread of the GM credit among characters.

Click to expand...

I just don't see that as abusive. Looking at LEW, there is no restriction. Sometimes people don't like playing at the initial power level, and if they feel like running games untill then so they can start more powerful, how does that hurt the system?

My only thought on that, is if you want to restrict it a bit, is that IF we allow for advancing PL, perhaps GM credit PPs don't count towards that. So if some guy has 5 years worth of GM credits before he plays (Extremely unlikely), the 30 PPs he gets won't count towards PL advancement, so he might be more powerful than other PL8s, but he's still a PL8 (or 10 respectively).

Reading through the proposal and thinking about it for a while, I think the risk of abuse is clearly offset by the running of games for a consistent period of time. If there is a restriction such as the no PL increase, I don't have a problem with it . . . though you are lessening the benefit you offering prospective GM's.

Keia