April Update—Second Seekers, Novas, Spotlights, and Conventions!

Congratulation to the new 5 star recipients who worked really hard to make this campaign a great experience for everyone.

Good to know what the requirements are for 5 novas now.

Excellent news!

Even if unlikely to hit the 150 game milestone, having that rubric available will help GMs self-evaluate to improve.

Looks like there was a bit of a typo up there for SkålCon! :'(

Glad to see you're not requiring three Venture-Captain adjudicated sessions for PFS1. This is a bit of a stretch to have it for PFS2. A lot is going to depend on the availability of Venture-Captains.

Reno has another convention that is a full gaming con at the end of June called RageCon.

I am assuming that all 3 games has to be the same VC?

I am assuming that all 3 games has to be the same VC?

Heck no! Everyone has to use the same the VC. I nominate TOZ.

Hmm

I what now?!

I what now?!

Hey you agreed to this

(rolls to aid bluff check)

Even if unlikely to hit the 150 game milestone, having that rubric available will help GMs self-evaluate to improve.

Glad to see you're not requiring three Venture-Captain adjudicated sessions for PFS1. This is a bit of a stretch to have it for PFS2. A lot is going to depend on the availability of Venture-Captains.

So more thoughts on this.

AVAILABILITY OF VCs

I think that by doing three adjudicated VC sessions, there will be a lot more work for Venture Captains. But with online play, I'm hoping that people will be able to reach out to a wide variety of VCs to get input from different folks. I know that not everyone lives in areas near VCs, or can make it out to conventions. But hopefully online play can make it easier to find a VC.

ONE VC OR MANY

I would suggest getting multiple opinions and hearing from more than one VC if you can, though it would be great to be able to check in with a venture officer about how you've improved over time. We're all different people, and look for different things.

THE VALUE OF EVALUATIONS AND A RUBRIC

What is being proposed was what I actually experienced in Minnesota. As I became a 3 Star GM, Jack and Keith and Jon Dehning started showing up at my tables and giving me feedback. It was gentle, and it helped me grow. I wound up doing a personal training path that involved GMing on all levels of a Special from 1-11, trying out different types of games, learning how to up my challenge level in combat, and working on growing. I had a whole bunch of evaluations that happened well before my 150th game.

I have no idea what's on the Rubric. I'd like to see it published, and that information to be widely known by everyone. It'll be interesting to see what the final amount totals too.

QUALITY AS WELL AS QUANTITY

I want the 5 star / nova / glyph to mean something.

QUERY TO PAIZO STAFF

Will there also be an option for Paizo Staff to adjudicate these games? Sometimes a GM and their local VC might be at odds, and that VC might not be able to judge that GM in a fair and unbiased manner. I know that GMs might seek other VCs online, but I want there to be other places they can turn to if needed.

I think that by doing three adjudicated VC sessions, there will be a lot more work for Venture Captains. But with online play, I'm hoping that people will be able to reach out to a wide variety of VCs to get input from different folks.

I'm not sure how much of a solution that is. You can be a great dm in meatspace but online DMing takes a few ranks in a seperate skillset before you can present the game with little enough of your brain to focus on giving a 5 star performance.

Even something as simple as using someone elses table is often like trying to read another wizards spellbook.

(never going to hear the end of the party almost dying to laser blasting seagulls... :) )

And no offence to those who do, but some GMs have absolutely no interest in online play.

And no offence to those who do, but some GMs have absolutely no interest in online play.

I would think that the intersection of people in the boonies that run 150 games but don't see a venture critter for the last 50 of those games would be a pretty small intersection on the venn digram wouldn't they?

Sandra Wilkinson wrote:

And no offence to those who do, but some GMs have absolutely no interest in online play.

I would think that the intersection of people in the boonies that run 150 games but don't see a venture critter for the last 50 of those games would be a pretty small intersection on the venn digram wouldn't they?

That may be true of Venture Critters, but VCs are a rarer beast. I am not in the boonies, and yet have only run one game with a VC at my table. Just about to be 2 as my next game is my 5 star game...

And no offence to those who do, but some GMs have absolutely no interest in online play.

In my own case : I maybe have GMed 150+ tables, and I could have decided to start the paperwork for my 5th star. Yet if I was hellbent on avoiding the online part, I would have been nowhere near it (I don't have enough specials yet, but it's quickly doable) because the IRL landscape in my area isn't super strong : mostly SFS/low to mid-level PFS, high-level not occurring since a couple of months. Worse, only a single VL still living in the country (and which for principle purposes, won't call upon for that because I know him too well and I want no biases).

I won't be able either to request a foreign VL or VC to come specifically for that, nor I might travel for the same purpose. So probably restricted to wait a convention then (possibly PaizoconUK). For me, online is a necessity.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Sandra Wilkinson wrote:

And no offence to those who do, but some GMs have absolutely no interest in online play.

I would think that the intersection of people in the boonies that run 150 games but don't see a venture critter for the last 50 of those games would be a pretty small intersection on the venn digram wouldn't they?

That may be true of Venture Critters, but VCs are a rarer beast. I am not in the boonies, and yet have only run one game with a VC at my table. Just about to be 2 as my next game is my 5 star game...

I run games in Atlanta, and at 125+ Starfinder games... I ran for the RVC once (year before last), several VLs and VAs, but I don't think I have ran a game for any VC at all...

Yes, you have not run for me yet, Glenn! We'll have to work something out on that sometime! But here's the weirdness... Although I'm an active Starfinder GM, I'm far behind you in Starfinder experience. It seems odd that the first few people that I may be mentoring through Novas and Glyphs will likely have skills and experience that far exceeds my own in those campaigns. Yes, I'm a quality GM. But if I do an Observation game, you'll be more likely to be mentoring me than the reverse!

The availability of VCs and acquiring 10 specials will necessitate either cons or online experience for many GMs. Likely, both. I know that online is a whole extra skillset, whether it's PBP or VTT, and I know that some have no interest in it. But if you can't travel, it may be the only way you acquire your other requirements for 5 novas and glyphs. A large percentage of the GMs that we get for PBP specials are people who do the majority of their GMing in-person, but need online conventions to earn their specials.

I don't want to put a tech burden on rural GMs, but I think that one already exists unless folks have the ability to do a lot of conventions.

★ --- ★ --- ★ --- ★

Another thought. Perhaps the answer to this conundrum will be either smaller regions and the promotion of more Venture Captains, or a loosening of the VC requirement to include Venture Lieutenants in areas where you are more than 2 hours drive / train ride from your VC.

Hmm

Sandra Wilkinson wrote:

And no offence to those who do, but some GMs have absolutely no interest in online play.

In my own case : I maybe have GMed 150+ tables, and I could have decided to start the paperwork for my 5th star. Yet if I was hellbent on avoiding the online part, I would have been nowhere near it (I don't have enough specials yet, but it's quickly doable) because the IRL landscape in my area isn't super strong : mostly SFS/low to mid-level PFS, high-level not occurring since a couple of months. Worse, only a single VL still living in the country (and which for principle purposes, won't call upon for that because I know him too well and I want no biases).

I won't be able either to request a foreign VL or VC to come specifically for that, nor I might travel for the same purpose. So probably restricted to wait a convention then (possibly PaizoconUK). For me, online is a necessity.

We also run English speaking Conventions in Germany, and I just attended a convention in the Netherlands, so you certainly have options ^^

Would it help to have more regions (RVCs)? Would a revamping of the Org Play structure be beneficial? These are things I have no answer to. What I do know is that in order to get 3 sessions adjudicated by a VC, I'm going to have to do some traveling (4 hours or more minimum) or do it online (which is not an issue for me).

Thank you for getting the five nova/glyph plan out! It definitely seems like RVCs and Paizo staff should be able to do an evaluation. Perhaps VLs could also do one or two of a GM’s evaluations to help spread that load out?

Philippe Lam wrote:

Sandra Wilkinson wrote:

And no offence to those who do, but some GMs have absolutely no interest in online play.

In my own case : I maybe have GMed 150+ tables, and I could have decided to start the paperwork for my 5th star. Yet if I was hellbent on avoiding the online part, I would have been nowhere near it (I don't have enough specials yet, but it's quickly doable) because the IRL landscape in my area isn't super strong : mostly SFS/low to mid-level PFS, high-level not occurring since a couple of months. Worse, only a single VL still living in the country (and which for principle purposes, won't call upon for that because I know him too well and I want no biases).

I won't be able either to request a foreign VL or VC to come specifically for that, nor I might travel for the same purpose. So probably restricted to wait a convention then (possibly PaizoconUK). For me, online is a necessity.

We also run English speaking Conventions in Germany, and I just attended a convention in the Netherlands, so you certainly have options ^^

Not sure if I would recommend taking the trip from Paris to my part of Germany via bus (as I have done a couple of times) but while it is more expensive than my trip to the Netherlands it is also much shorter ^^

Yes, Phillippe...... come to The Netherlands....

THE VALUE OF EVALUATIONS AND A RUBRIC

What is being proposed was what I actually experienced in Minnesota. As I became a 3 Star GM, Jack and Keith and Jon Dehning started showing up at my tables and giving me feedback. It was gentle, and it helped me grow. I wound up doing a personal training path that involved GMing on all levels of a Special from 1-11, trying out different types of games, learning how to up my challenge level in combat, and working on growing. I had a whole bunch of evaluations that happened well before my 150th game.

I have no idea what's on the Rubric. I'd like to see it published, and that information to be widely known by everyone. It'll be interesting to see what the final amount totals too.

If I were still in charge of the asylum, this is what I would suggest.

Yes, you have not run for me yet, Glenn! We'll have to work something out on that sometime! But here's the weirdness... Although I'm an active Starfinder GM, I'm far behind you in Starfinder experience. It seems odd that the first few people that I may be mentoring through Novas and Glyphs will likely have skills and experience that far exceeds my own in those campaigns. Yes, I'm a quality GM. But if I do an Observation game, you'll be more likely to be mentoring me than the reverse!

Hilary, I think you are fully qualified to judge a 5-Nova game session.

As a 5-Star GM, you already know what it takes to manage everything outside the scope of the rules set (preparation, managing the table, handling disruptive players, reporting, etc.).

As a 2-Nova GM, you have enough experience in the Starfinder system to provide a quality-control check on the GM's Starfinder rules knowledge. I don't expect anyone to have perfect rules knowledge, but an observation game should give provide ample evidence about the GM's general knowledge of the rules.

My concern lies with a V-C who doesn't have some reasonable experience with the game system that the prospective GM is attempting to qualify for; that V-C won't be in a position to judge rules knowledge of the system by the GM.

I think this is an area that will grow more problematic as the number of game systems increases (especially if OPF expands beyond Paizo games).

GM Hmm wrote:

Yes, you have not run for me yet, Glenn! We'll have to work something out on that sometime! But here's the weirdness... Although I'm an active Starfinder GM, I'm far behind you in Starfinder experience. It seems odd that the first few people that I may be mentoring through Novas and Glyphs will likely have skills and experience that far exceeds my own in those campaigns. Yes, I'm a quality GM. But if I do an Observation game, you'll be more likely to be mentoring me than the reverse!

Hilary, I think you are fully qualified to judge a 5-Nova game session.

As a 5-Star GM, you already know what it takes to manage everything outside the scope of the rules set (preparation, managing the table, handling disruptive players, reporting, etc.).

As a 2-Nova GM, you have enough experience in the Starfinder system to provide a quality-control check on the GM's Starfinder rules knowledge. I don't expect anyone to have perfect rules knowledge, but an observation game should give provide ample evidence about the GM's general knowledge of the rules.

My concern lies with a V-C who doesn't have some reasonable experience with the game system that the prospective GM is attempting to qualify for; that V-C won't be in a position to judge rules knowledge of the system by the GM.

I think this is an area that will grow more problematic as the number of game systems increases (especially if OPF expands beyond Paizo games).

I suspect that finding a VC to watch/attend a game depends on how we set it up, for example:

I would be willing and reasonably skilled enough to administer a 5 Nova/Glyph/Muffin review for PFS1/SFS/PF2 since I am quite familiar with the current state of those systems and work through every single new release.

Personally, I would want to read the scenario in question, do my research etc. before the review, so I could ask some questions during and after the game (and to know immediately when things are going off script).
Scenario choice is also something I would like to discuss with the GM, running an evergreen or low-level scenario might not be adequate to give proper feedback - though some are, it depends on the skillset of the GM.

I would be capable of attending meatspace games as well as roll20.net VTT games, I am not familiar enough with other platforms to prevent that lack of familiarity to give a proper review.

---

If we can create a list like that as VOs, it should be pretty simple to find a VC for each GM (though I would expect prospective GMs to request the first review when they are very close to getting their 100s table not when they are at 147 and in a hurry).

Is one of the things being done in the tech is allow normal players to make recommendations on their GMs? If you allowed the people to do this and allowed VOs to see those in their region it would help them know who is seen as a good GM already and who may need some mentoring.

One question in my mind is what is the metric for “exceeds expectations” since you are requiring a GM to have at least one area where they do this?

A question regarding the 5 novas:
Since you need 10 specials to qualify which scenarios are considered specials?
I guess 1-99 is a special but what about 1-00. Is there anything else?

I also just noticed that getting 50 uniques is quite hard because we only have 38 sfs scenarios released so far.

Is one of the things being done in the tech is allow normal players to make recommendations on their GMs? If you allowed the people to do this and allowed VOs to see those in their region it would help them know who is seen as a good GM already and who may need some mentoring.

One question in my mind is what is the metric for “exceeds expectations” since you are requiring a GM to have at least one area where they do this?

This has been brought up in the past and has the same answer every time: no.

Ideally, players should be telling coordinators who tell VLs who tell VCs. PFS doesn’t need a “Hot or Not” GM ranking system.

A question regarding the 5 novas:

Since you need 10 specials to qualify which scenarios are considered specials?
I guess 1-99 is a special but what about 1-00. Is there anything else?

I also just noticed that getting 50 uniques is quite hard because we only have 38 sfs scenarios released so far.

Same question, considering the vastly different prep requirements 1-00 seems a bit easy to qualify for your specials.

Is one of the things being done in the tech is allow normal players to make recommendations on their GMs? If you allowed the people to do this and allowed VOs to see those in their region it would help them know who is seen as a good GM already and who may need some mentoring.

One question in my mind is what is the metric for “exceeds expectations” since you are requiring a GM to have at least one area where they do this?

GM quality is subjective and I would be very worried to see something like review bombing becoming a thing. Chances are that if the GMs in question do not just offer private tables and attend events they are somewhat known to local GMs or through word of mouth. And if someone is just servicing their very limited local players, that will not result in useful data either.

As Leg of Lamb has suggested, if you had a great time at a GMs table, spread the word if you had a bad time, maybe let your local VOs know. It might just have been the scenario, but if for example, a local player notices a GM becoming antagonistic and trying to get kills... I would very much like to know that.

That may be true of Venture Critters, but VCs are a rarer beast. I am not in the boonies, and yet have only run one game with a VC at my table. Just about to be 2 as my next game is my 5 star game...

1) grats/goodluck/break a leg

2) but thats two without trying.. or well 1 without a reason to try and 1 trying.

On the one hand, without trying you're 2/3rds of the way there.

On the other hand, given the scarcity of venture captains i don't know whats going to come up in game 3 that didn't come up in games 1-2/

If people are worried about acquiring technical expertise to run online, my degree is in trees.

How to play online

Which you should definitely look at and then do a few times before running online. DMing experience won't help you if all people can see is a blank screen.

how to make a roll 20 table

I also make my tables to be low on the muss and fuss because i usually method act Envar want to keep the focus on the game. I have most games set up as tables if people want to try it out.

How do I go about obtaining Venture-Captain observation at a large convention?

I am volunteering at both PaizoCon and Origins this year and would like to obtain my three Venture-Captain observations at those events.

I should reach 150 tables by the end of PaizoCon. I should have 50 unique scenarios at or shortly after Origins. I have run 1-99 six times and 1-00 seven times; I am unclear on whether or not I have met the 10 specials requirement.

Gary --

You ask VCs you want, as well as the other delightful players that you want at the table. When I went for my five star, I invited Linda Zayas-Palmer, Keith Apperson and Jack Brown (my beloved MN VCs), Tyler Beck (a beloved fellow online VC), my boyfriend Bret and then got TOZ as a bonus! You don't need to get that many VCs. I just wanted representation from both the regions where I play and GM!

Are you coming in Wednesday? I am at PaizoCon on Wednesday, and would be happy to do an observation anytime on Wednesday, or anytime Thursday morning or afternoon. You get to pick, since you are the first to ask me. I could also do an evaluation session anytime on Monday, as I leave on Tuesday. We might be able to do other times, but I don't know what my schedule will be during the convention.

Hopefully by then we'll have an idea of the Rubric and what the evaluation should entail. By 50 unique scenarios, I'm assuming that you are including the AP volumes in the tally?

Hmm

PS If you would rather have different VCs, I'll understand and happily step aside for my colleagues.

A question regarding the 5 novas:

Since you need 10 specials to qualify which scenarios are considered specials?
I guess 1-99 is a special but what about 1-00. Is there anything else?

I also just noticed that getting 50 uniques is quite hard because we only have 38 sfs scenarios released so far.

FIFTY UNIQUE SCENARIOS

I am assuming that AP volumes, modules and Into the Unknown all count towards this total.

THE SPECIAL REQUIREMENT & Claim to Salvation

Year of the Shadow Lodge is a very easy scenario to GM, yet still counts towards the PFS special requirement.

1-00 was advertised as an SFS Special at its original offering at GenCon. If we do decide to decommission it as a special, I ask that we grandfather in the GMing of any instances of 1-00 Claim to Salvation that occurred prior to the release of 1-99.

SHOULD VENTURE LIEUTENANTS BE ABLE TO EVALUATE?

Absolutely. I think that 2 out of your 3 evaluations should be able to come from Venture Lieutenants. There are really not very many Venture Captains, and not all of us have extensive experience in every organized play campaign when we start out in the job. I will note that when I got my early evaluations from Jack Brown and Keith Apperson, both were Venture Lieutenants. Both gave me excellent feedback that helped me grow.

How do I go about obtaining Venture-Captain observation at a large convention?

To be completely honest, it is not an easy task. Generally speaking the organizers of major events like those only know VOs who are going to be in attendance if they are volunteers which doesn't really help much unless their free slots align with your GM slots. The best thing I can advise is to start threads in this forum as well as other social media sites (Facebook, Slack, Twitter, etc) announcing that you are looking for some VOs to sit at your table. Once you identify them, you can share schedules to make sure they obtain an event ticket for the table you're running. Then you can provide the information to the organizing committee (HQ) for the convention so they can make sure the players are seated at your table.

: nods :

That's why I suggested scheduling before or after the convention. It's a much more relaxed experience. I also suggest thinking about whom you want to ask to be there, and arranging the tables well in advance.

Hmm

I don't have any time either before or after PaizoCon. I do have time before and after Origins. I also have time before and after GenCon.

I asked for help since I expect some difficulty in finding some Venture-Captains. I expect that many are volunteering. I expect that many want to play high-level PFS (1E) games with friends they've made over the years.

In the past year, I traveled to seven out-of-area conventions with the goal of meeting and playing with new people. But I didn't really make new friends; that's not something that comes easily for me.

One difficulty is that the Venture-Officers tend to GM a lot of games at the smaller conventions; alternatively, they are busy with convention organizing duties. So we don't really get an opportunity to play games together.

As a result, I don't have particular Venture-Captains that I'm looking for.

I won't be attending the other out-of-Minnesota conventions this year. But I have a relatively light volunteering schedule at PaizoCon. Let's figure out a time when I can be at one of your tables. Why don't you email me, so we don't take up more of this discussion, and we'll work something out?

Also, I'll try to introduce you around. That's something that comes pretty easily to me. It's easier meeting people if you just know a few people who can help you make introductions.

Sound good?

Hmm

I run games in Atlanta, and at 125+ Starfinder games... I ran for the RVC once (year before last), several VLs and VAs, but I don't think I have ran a game for any VC at all...

Right but that's without trying. WIth trying how hard would it be?

Certification of 5-Nova/Glyph GMs is something I take pretty seriously. I’ve worked for decades in jobs that require certification and I would like to share my thoughts on this matter.
Going to three evaluation games requires more planning and coordination than we previously had for one evaluation game. For my 5-Star evaluation, my local Venture-Captain emailed me when we I was getting close and we arranged for an evaluation game at an upcoming convention. That was pretty easy, but the job of finding two more evaluation games will require a lot more effort (especially for GMs in regions without other nearby Venture-Captains).
#1) A Venture-Captain performing the Observation role should not be someone who are friends with or regularly play together with GM under observation. They should be an independent reviewer.
Taking Hilary’s example posted above, I applaud the role that Jack, Keith, and Jon had in mentoring Hilary. Kudos to Hilary for accepting the constructive criticism in an effort to become a better GM. However, I find it inappropriate for Jack, Keith, or Jon to perform that evaluation since they are invested in the outcome. Prospective GMs should not be cherry-picking their observation Venture-Captains.
#2) We should incentivize the Venture-Captains in some way for performing observation games.
We need Venture-Captains to perform this function for GMs that they do not know. But they are forgoing other opportunities to observe the GM. I propose that Venture-Captains be given volunteer credit (as if they were GMing) when they formally observe a game at a convention. This gives the convention organizer a resource that they can use since a Venture-Captain should be able to volunteer for observation games in a manner similar to volunteering to run PFS (either 1E or 2E) and SFS events.
For observation games outside of a convention, perhaps we could have some sort of boon that the Venture-Captain would receive (though I have no idea what boon would be attractive to the Venture-Captains).
#3) The Venture-Captain should have reasonable familiarity with the game system under observation.
While I believe a large portion of evaluating a GM falls under generic GM skills, there is still a portion that is system specific. Otherwise, there is no point in requiring a GM to re-certify for different systems. I propose that an observation Venture-Captain must have a 2-Nova/Glyph level in the game system. That should be enough for a Venture-Captain to have a reasonable working knowledge of the rules set and what it takes to prepare a game in that system without necessarily being an expert.
#4) We should have some form of clearing house to pair up GMs and Venture-Captains.
Some people, as part of their regular life, travel to different areas. This could prove very helpful for helping GMs get their observation games. It is certainly possible that a traveling GM could contact a Venture-Captain in the area that the GM is traveling to, but I don’t know that there’s any way for a Venture-Captain to look to see if there is a prospective GM where they are traveling to.
#5) We should simplify to a simple Pass/Fail system
I am concerned about requiring GMs to Exceed Expectations in one or more areas. I expect a lot of table variation in determining whether the GM’s behavior is meets or exceeds. Additionally, do we really want to penalize prospective 5-Nova/Glyph GMs who are merely competent but not exceptional?

#1) A Venture-Captain performing the Observation role should not be someone who are friends with or regularly play together with GM under observation. They should be an independent reviewer.

Taking Hilary’s example posted above, I applaud the role that Jack, Keith, and Jon had in mentoring Hilary. Kudos to Hilary for accepting the constructive criticism in an effort to become a better GM. However, I find it inappropriate for Jack, Keith, or Jon to perform that evaluation since they are invested in the outcome. Prospective GMs should not be cherry-picking their observation Venture-Captains.

Ah, but my 5 Star Game confirmation game was actually officially evaluated by Linda Zayas-Palmer. Jack and Keith were just along for the ride. :)

I like the idea of having someone unfamiliar with you or your style of GMing evaluate you, but there are issues with this too. If we were to adopt this, I would be really hard pressed to find an observation VC. So many of us Venture Captains know each other from these forums, online play or the VC dinners.

Still it is an interesting point. I would also like people to go outside their region for at least one of their evaluations.

Hmm

My 5 Star evaluation was at PaizoCon with a VC I had never met in more than passing.

sigh...

from the comments I am seeing in this thread, I think I'm going to need to turn in my 5th star...

ah well, I've had it for a only a few months so it's not real used, maybe we can pass it on to someone else...

#1) A Venture-Captain performing the Observation role should not be someone who are friends with or regularly play together with GM under observation. They should be an independent reviewer.

Now you're looking at making someone take 3 out of state trips. I think otherwise everyone is going to know each other.

sigh...

from the comments I am seeing in this thread, I think I'm going to need to turn in my 5th star...

ah well, I've had it for a only a few months so it's not real used, maybe we can pass it on to someone else...

Don't be silly, Nosig. We all want to see you keep your 5th star!

They're not changing the PFS star requirements. Just making the ones for novas and glyphs more evaluative.

Hmm

Whilst I am in favour of adding further requirements, to make it actually *mean* something, if you needed the evaluating VC to *not* know you, for smaller areas (such as Australia), it would also mandate that the prospective five nova/glyph GM engage in international travel for such evaluation games, as the local community is (relatively) small - and if you have been around a while, you know all the local VCs, and the RVC...

I am not advocating that the standard be someone you "know". For example, I know Jack. I went to his house last year for the pre-SkalCon get-together. However, we are not friends. We do not game together regularly (or at all). Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable that Jack observe my 5-Nova game.

I acknowledge that my standard is idealistic to some extent. The reason for the standard is to allow the Venture-Captain to be completely honest in their assessment, especially if the prospective GM deserves to be failed. That is much harder to do if the prospective GM is a friend or someone you game with regularly.

Just increasing the requirement from one Venture-Captain to three Venture-Captains is going to make it more difficult for prospective GMs. Ideas #2 and #4 are attempts to make it easier to sync up GMs with Venture-Captains. I encourage feedback on my other ideas (since it seems like we are stuck on who the GMs know).

Another possibility, as mentioned up-thread is for online or PbP gaming. I am personally not interested in either of those options, but I am also fortunate to be able to travel to conventions outside my area. Others may need to use those options.

I encourage feedback. It may well be that the community doesn't like any of my ideas and I can live with that. But I felt strongly that we needed to have a conversation about it.

I think requiring the GMs who evaluate for 5 stars/novas/glyphs/other marks to not have too close a connection to the GM being evaluated is forgetting that this is a game we are playing, not certification for something that people's safety might depend on.

It is also very unreasonable. My evaluations will be by PbP, and although we have plenty of different VCs who are part of our PbP community, I will have almost for sure played with all of them multiple times before I'm ready for those evaluations. And a VC who has not played several games in PbP would not really be able to evaluate a PbP game.