Ideas For Paizo on Making a Better PFS GM

[Dragnmoon]

So this was a fairly large thread mostly dealing about listing different difficulty scales of a scenario mostly as a way to deal with a mixture of different player types at a table or so players know if it will be too difficult to play in.

There have been also a lot recent threads on how different player types can ruin play experience *optimizer vs. non optimizer and similar stuff*.

Instead of drastic changes to PFS rules or on How a scenario is made there is a much easier thing to do *IMO* then to figure out a complicated method of difficulty of a Scenario or adjusting how scenarios are written, provide more resources to teach GMs how to deal with different types of players in a group.

By far the greatest impact of the perceived difficulty of a scenario or experience of the players of different types is based on the experience/knowledge/skill of the GM. Providing advice/tactics/training for GMs would go much farther in providing enjoyment of all players no matter the type of player then working on a complicated near impossible rating system or dramatic PFS rules changes.

So now I get to the purpose of the thread, I would like to use this thread as a spark for all of us to give ideas to Mike and John on how to make Better PFS GMs. We all can do things locally but High level initiatives would have a greater impact overall on the GMs.

I have a few ideas, and they are just a starting point, I would love to hear opinions on my ideas and other new ideas on making Better GMS.

They got to a great start with GM 101, I would love to see this go farther and even link it up to our GM star system. Make a GM 201 and 301 with more advanced GM training and then require some kind of method for GMs to show they learned from these before they get their next star and maybe some kind of method of tracking that. For this to work you are going to need GMs to want their next star which of course requires some kind of reward, but that is a different subject I do not want to get into.

Keep all the other requirements the same for getting stars but before they can get their 2nd star they need to show they read/attended/watched *more on that in a second* the GM 101 course. Once that is done they get their star. The same for 3rd star *GM 201* and 4th *GM 301*. The 4th star which already requires peer review can stay as is.

Now I don't want to require tests I just want to be able to show that a GM as actually at the least looked at them. One idea is to film a session of a GM 101 course being done and provide it to the GM once they have the number scenarios requirement. Even just reading them a GM would learn something which is more than nothing.

This may require a lot of trust on the GMs to actually do what they said they have done, but if that is too much for anyone you could actually require them to be in a reported GM *01 course, though that would be harder to get accomplished. I am not looking for something that looks like "Work" just something that at least if a GM looked through they would get information and knowledge they did not have before. Any ideas on how we can track if a GM got through a Training course that is not a “test”?

Another idea would be so a Monthly/bi-monthly PFS GM Advice Blog. Mike and John can go to the many great GMs they have out there to write these.

So what do you guys think? What other ideas do you have?

[Finlanderboy]

I think this is a great idea. I always say steal from the best with pride. I try to take the ideas I enjoyed playing with from DMs.

[Furious Kender]

Dragnmoon wrote:

They got to a great start with GM 101, I would love to see this go farther and even link it up to our GM star system. Make a GM 201 and 301 with more advanced GM training and then require some kind of method for GMs to show they learned from these before they get their next star and maybe some kind of method of tracking that. For this to work you are going to need GMs to want their next star which of course requires some kind of reward, but...

Well, stars are an incentive and show experience with PFS. However, GM quality is only loosely linked to stars. I've seen high star gms I really am indifferent about playing with again and some no to low star gms I would play under any day in any system. For example, this wasn't in pfs, but I had a very experienced big-con GM fall asleep once during a mod at Origins. He was sort of grumpy, so we let him sleep a good 30 minutes.

Honestly, I think one of the best ways of improving GM skill is to play under good GMs and think about why they are fun. A lot of GMs don't do this much because they run all the time.

Not all GMs are the same. For example, some are fun because they are storytellers with a lot of improv, empathy, and perspective taking. These types of GMs may understand the scenario well, but are happy to go completely off the rails to suit the party. Others are fun because they are super prepared for the standard run with good tactics and whatnot.

At any rate, I find that a lot of GM 101 tends to be about how to GM efficiently, and GMing efficiently isn't the same thing as being a good GM. An efficient GM gets the job done smoothly. A good GM will turn a poor mod into a fun experience.

[Dragnmoon]

Furious Kender wrote:

Well, stars are an incentive and show experience with PFS. However, GM quality is only loosely linked to stars.

The idea was to link Quality with the Stars...

Furious Kender wrote:

At any rate, I find that a lot of GM 101 tends to be about how to GM efficiently, and GMing efficiently isn't the same thing as being a good GM. An efficient GM gets the job done smoothly. A good GM will turn a poor mod into a fun experience.

Have you read PFS GM 101?

Though there is some in there about GMing efficiently, that is not the main focus of it.

[Furious Kender]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Furious Kender wrote:

Well, stars are an incentive and show experience with PFS. However, GM quality is only loosely linked to stars.

The idea was to link Quality with the Stars...

Furious Kender wrote:

At any rate, I find that a lot of GM 101 tends to be about how to GM efficiently, and GMing efficiently isn't the same thing as being a good GM. An efficient GM gets the job done smoothly. A good GM will turn a poor mod into a fun experience.

Have you read PFS GM 101?

Though there is some in there about GMing efficiently, that is not the main focus of it.

Putting them together would be great. However, I think it would be simpler to have a rating or feedback system.

Sorry, I've attended a lot of GMing 101 classes and read too many how to be a GM books. If you want a laugh, read the early edition DMGs from WOTC. They are almost funny with their bad advice. Looking at what Paizo has done is nice, and is fairly advanced for a 101.

Honestly, I'd still rather observe the people who wrote the book GM or some other good GM. For me at least, I get a lot more from that than reading from a book.

One problem PFS and other organized play campaigns face is that when given a module, a lot of GMs freeze up and play it on the rails regardless of what the players do. Also not in PFS, but I once had a GM get so befuddled because the party went off the rails he almost cried and refused to go on until we started playing along with what the writers expected instead of playing the characters. I will never forget him having the hostages refusing to get rescued because it wasn't supposed to happen yet in the mod. Stockholm syndrome gone mad I guess.

At any rate, sorry to distract from your thread.

[Dragnmoon]

Furious Kender wrote:

Honestly, I'd still rather observe the people who wrote the book GM or some other good GM. For me at least, I get a lot more from that than reading from a book.

So most of what you have there is off subject, but this part leads to another thing.

GM Field Experience. Kind of on subject, I have found as a GM I have learned more from going to conventions and learning from other GMs then any of my home games. Another thing to link GM quality to GM stars is to link Convention GMing to getting your stars. A GM going to a convention can be a sign of the possibility of growing in your experience.

That said, Furious you missed the whole point of this thread.

I am looking for ideas on what Paizo can do in PFS to help make our GMs better, not reasons why GMs are bad.

[Jack R Brown]

Dragnmoon,
I will start by saying that I agree with what you are saying, but also see that this is something difficult to codify.

I think we all will agree that we all get better as GMs by playing under good GMs... we learn lessons from those that do it differently than we do. Cons are always a good place to learn, both from players and from GMs. I agree that you can continue to learn a lot about playing and GMing from home games, there is a big difference between them, and social play. Running Champions (and other) games at the Con of the North has taught me that... it has especially taught me that I am a poor judge of how much can be done in a 4-hour time slot in the way of story telling, etc.

That's where PFS play has been quite enlightening to me. In general, I have been impressed by the amount of story that the authors have been able to pack into a 4-5 hour scenario. In many ways I think it is helping me in the home games that I play, and as I continue to run PFS scenarios, I think I will get better at that as well.

Even though I have been GMing RPGs since 1978 (*gasp*!!!), I know that it is always possible to get better. In the realm of organized play, you continue to learn rules that you don't always focus on in home games (such as grappling, tripping, etc), and, interestingly enough, teaches the value of things like expendables (potions, wands, alchemical weapons). I will say that in my home game, we rarely bought anything other than CLW wands (or Restoration wands at higher level).

It does taking running a good number of games, I think, to really get good. In the realm of PFS games, I cannot say that I am there, though I think that even though I have only run 5 sessions at this point, I am getting better with each one. I've learned how much prep time I currently need to feel comfortable with a scenario... which is a bit more than I started with. I also quickly learned that it is often the little things that can impress a group, and make the gaming experience much better... like spending the hour or so to draw out the theater for Among The Living... or whatever.

I know that I could not currently pull off what our V-C Ryan Blomquist did a few weeks ago... at a Game Day, he was expecting to run a certain scenario (which was a part 2 of a series), but as it turned out, only one of the players had actually played part 1. He then chose a new scenario, which he had played once, but never run, and ran it cold. He did an amazing job of it!! This really showed me how much experience counts in running PFS games, and how good our local V-C really is! (Thank you, Ryan!)

So, what am I getting at with my ramble?

Well, we all know that playing is important as GMing, to be a good GM. Perhaps there should be a minimum number GMs played under to gain a star. This would show dedication to both sides of the screen... and dedication to learning. Perhaps for lower stars (1 and 2?) the aspiring GM should have a certain number of games under 4-5 star GMs (or V-Os), since these are our most experienced GMs. Later, to gain the 4th and 5th stars (maybe even 3rd) you'd need to play under a certain number of 0-2 star GMs. This would be for mentoring purposes... to try and help the less experienced GMs through the early learning phases, and create better GMs in general.

The risk here is that it would tend to penalize players in smaller lodges, as they would by their nature have fewer GMs.

I guess I don't really know how to codify all of this, but just throwing out some semi-stream of consciousness babble on my ideas. ;)

[Furious Kender]

Dragnmoon wrote:

Furious Kender wrote:

Honestly, I'd still rather observe the people who wrote the book GM or some other good GM. For me at least, I get a lot more from that than reading from a book.

So most of what you have there is off subject, but this part leads to another thing.

GM Field Experience. Kind of on subject, I have found as a GM I have learned more from going to conventions and learning from other GMs then any of my home games. Another thing to link GM quality to GM stars is to link Convention GMing to getting your stars. A GM going to a convention can be a sign of the possibility of growing in your experience.

That said, Furious you missed the whole point of this thread.

I am looking for ideas on what Paizo can do in PFS to help make our GMs better, not reasons why GMs are bad.

I was not off topic. I was trying to subtly tell you I agree with the goal but thought your suggestion on how to move toward it was a bad idea. For example reading a book on how to educate isn't nearly as helpful as watching a good teacher or getting feedback on your teaching. I would prefer a feedback system to requiring reading a book.

[Finlanderboy]

I think I am going to start handing out survery sheets from my PCs on me.

I agree reading a book on how to do something as broad as DMing is silly. There are good pointers people should have here and there yes, but the best way to become better is to see other people DM or be told how to improve.

Honesty a piece of document on how to recieve and give criticism would be more valuable. I played with a DM that was proud he never played the game befor eonly DMed and it was like his 4 session. That DM murdered the mod by not following it and making it much harder then it possibly should be causing us to fail. Also the poor DM description on the areas made areas seem inacessible. When he asked us to critique him. I told him he handled the difficult player at our table well. Then when I said how he messed up one thing he instantly became very sullen and defensive. So I stopped.

It seemed to me he wanted everyone to say he did a great job and it was too hard of a mod with a difficult cheating player making it worse. Plus he admitting that he was playing the scenario cold.

People need to accept they are falliable and make mistakes. People need to learn how to beceom better. This is no idfferent for GMs

[Dragnmoon]

So the GM 101 is not meant to Read, it is Meant to be taught while being put into situations for the GMs. It is kind of a interactive training course.

I would love to require every GM to go through it before getting stars but that would be very difficult because not every GM will be able to get one done in their area. So instead at the least have them read it or watch a video of a session being taught.

And Once again Furious you keep putting down the PFS GM 101 course but have you actual attended the PFS one? I know you said you have been or seen a GM 101 classes, but have you been to the one published by Paizo with the help of Joe Caubo, John Compton, Joshua Foster, Kyle Pratt, And Nani Pratt?

Edit: And I Agree teaching GMs to take criticism would be helpful, and feedback beyond discussions at the table would not go well. Good feedback requires a two way conversation.