|
Apparently, some folks are wondering who I slept with at Paizo to be rated a 5-Star GM. ;) Truth be told, it was Jason Bulmahn.
Why else would I ask him to attend NeonCon. It couldn't be the fact that he is the lead designer of the game we all love! It has to be that manly goatee, his love of beer and his lederhosen!
In all seriousness, I think some of the questions/critiques raised in this thread (sorry Twilight_Knight) are legitimate concerns for the future of PFS. So, as suggested by Liz, I've moved the discussion here.
As noted in the original message, my aim here is not to defend my own contributions. Whether or not others judge them to be insufficient, I know I bleed Paizo purple and promote the game whenever and where ever I can. I don't need the community or Paizo to acknowledge or reward me to continue my support of Pathfinder and PFS OP.
Rather, my aim in rebutting the initial comments were as follows:
- First, to simply ask that people get to know me (and gather some facts) before casting aspersions (cereal box 5-star GM) on me in public.
- Second, and most important, to call attention the the fact that there are many ways one can be a incredibly valuable member of the PFS community, even if they cannot GM 100+ games a year.
- Third, and I admit this is a bit of a pet peeve, but we are all grown ups here. Throwing darts at one another on the Internet is pointless and only serves to further divide a community that is already too small as it is.
Kyle/Thorn: Just so we are clear, I was not demanding that anyone respect me. I was only asking that people get to know me and what I may or may have not done before accusing me of getting something for nothing, which is what was happening earlier in this thread.
With that said, I think this conversation is a valuable one to have and, I am confident that Hyrum, Mark and the rest of the Paizo crew will take it seriously. If folks taking shots at me leads to a better PFS, I'll gladly wear the target any time.
Peace,
Doug
PS: Thanks, in advance, to Jason Bulmahn for being a good sport. While he is dashing, he is, in fact, not the Rutowski to my Vilk. ;)
PPS: Good on Crystal Fraiser for adding a grown-up sub-plot to Midnight Mauler. We are, after all, all adults here.
Throwing darts at one another on the Internet is pointless and only serves to further divide a community that is already too small as it is.
But.. but.. :puts dart away dejectedly:
Throwing darts is all fun and games until someone puts an eye out or fails a concentration check.
|
|
Doug.. first of all I'm doing my best not to take sides, and I can understand the defensive stance you've taken.
However, I see the lay-persons viewpoint on this. We see the Paizo defined definition of what it takes to earn the 5th star, and there are those that are working hard within those guidelines to earn the perks that were promised for that hard work. While at the same time seeing someone that -- while you may have the hard work behind the scenes, doesn't fall into the criteria that Paizo has set, the "reward" was handed to you.
In answer to your questions about what to do.. I think there is another thread that was started that asked about rewards for contribution; in that what can be done for those that do more behind the scenes contribution as opposed to reporting what they GM. In all fairness there should be a system developed and have your designation switched over to that system.
If you don't put in the GM time then you shouldn't have access to the perks for GMing despite all the work you do promoting. If you are GMing then you should start reporting it so that people do see that you're working your way up the star chart and earning the perks.
As for what defines a contributor --
Effort with organizing cons, other events, promoting in game stores, coordinating gamedays
all of that should be able to have some sort of reporting factor to it, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an easy way to report it for recognition.
Director of Game Development
|
I like me some Doug Daulton and I like me some Kyle Baird, and quite honestly, I think both of you would like each other quite a bit. (Stupid Internet)
That said, I think it’s appropriate that there are different classifications for folks promoting Pathfinder, Pathfinder Society, and the hobby in general when it comes to receiving little rewards. (Personally, my reward is hearing about folks playing and having a good time, especially if it's something I added to the hobby.)
GM’s (of all stars, really) work their asses off. Those gathering a constellation work their asses off running tables, coordinating tables, and being the big man at conventions all across the globe to get the special events. Folks like Doug rent out entire convention centers at hotels on the Vegas strip to host those special events, as well as bunches of other games. Not just coordinating a convention, but creating and building one.
Hell, my dumb ass has access to some of the *special events* due to my contributor status (not that I’m running that stuff; just reading it so I can keep things clear in future work.)
So, yeah, it’d be interesting to see different denominations of status, especially if it keeps from fracturing an already small hobby. It’s a shame when I see folks with the same intentions grumbling over specific details. Kinda counterproductive, if you ask me.
But that’s just, like, my opinion, man.
I have several friends that run conventions (or have done so) and that is expensive in the extreme -- especially if you don't inherent one and have to build it from the ground up yourself. These people spent the year after the con paying it off and paying for the next year's Con -- and rarely got to actually enjoy their own Con due to running it.
Even those that simply helped with events during Cons often had a shorter life span for their efforts at the end of the Con due to stress.
So I'm all for the folks that are that masochistic getting something for their work in making sure that the GMs for something like PFS actually have a place to run their games.
|
I had a long tirade about respecting the status of a 5-star GM, but I really can't see any benefit of posting it. I don't have anything against you Vegas Doug. If you are genuinely promoting PFS to the degree that Detroit Doug is, then you deserve your 5-star. If not, then you don't deserve it. IMO Detroit Doug has set the 5-star bar for me, and if you're not doing as much or more than him, than you shouldn't have a 5-star. That's not just directed at you, but everyone.
Lastly, to clarify. I'm trying my best to be objective. It's hard because I like and respect Kyle. I have been trying my best to only use what I can verify as fact. Which isn't a lot since you can't/won't verify your 5-star status, and Paizo can't/won't verify it. Which is why I think people find it odd you have it.
|
|
Thea - I completely understand the concerns being raised and, in fact, I tend to agree with them in principle. To Thorn's point, it must look like I walked in and was handed a "12th-level character" when everyone else had to earn theirs. So, I get it.
As someone who wrestles with this a lot as a game day organizer and convention owner, I know the easiest thing to measure and reward is slots run as a GM. The problem is, often times, the lion's share of the work done at these events happens days, weeks or month in front of these events by people who never even get to game at the event, not even as a GM. These are the folks who do the following:
- Process GM records so players and GMs get reward credits.
- Negotiate and pay for (or take the financial risk for) the table space for a game day or convention.
- Organize schedules and round up GMs to help make sure everyone who wants a seat has one.
- Requests and organize prize support to "pay GMs" for the time they run games, while collecting little or none of their own.
- Pay for the printing of all of the modules, chronicles, maps, OP player guides and pre-gens, character sheets to be used by the GMS & players.
- Lug boxes of modules, maps and minis to and from the venue.
The list goes on and on and none of it is any more important (or less important) than the GM at the table.
So, the real question here is how does one measure these other contributions?
In past systems (LG, etc.) it was often left to the sole discretion of one or two people at the event venue (game day, con or store) or the publisher. That led to the very sort of cronyism that some thought might be going on in my case.
There is no easy answer. And, I agree the current rules don't account for a case like mine. And, I am sure I am not the only person to whom this case applies.
The problem is made worse when people chose to harangue the individual (me) or the company (Paizo) only to vent their spleen and troll for sympathy (not that anyone here was doing that, but it has been known to happen on the Internet). Railing at the gods (or the establishment) accomplishes nothing.
So, let's talk about ideas.
What sorts of non-GM community support merits reward? How could these actions be reliably and fairly measured? How would/should they stack up to the number of games run by an active GM?
When we, as a community, start to answer these questions, we give Paizo a place to start to address the issues for the good of the entire community and the company it supports.
DD
|
It is human nature to want to be liked by others.
One way to feel liked by others is to receive accolades.
One way to receive accolades is to belong to a group with some sort of ranking system.
When one feels that their accolade has been diminished, it tends to trigger the primal rage one feels when they feel nobody likes them.
Is this logical? No. But subconscious emotions rarely are.
We can only control what we do. Not what anyone else does.
One should be proud of all their own hard work and care not a wit about what anyone else is or is not doing.
Only by showing example can one show the way to more accolade.
Worrying about your own tarnished trophy based on what others may or may not be doing to deserve their trophy doesn't do anything but tarnish your own trophy.
I for one, won't GM to get stars. I GM for the love of giving others a good time. If that means I get stars and eventually accolades or trophies... I'll enjoy them, because I know that it will give me just one more avenue by which to give others a good time.
<shrug>
It sounds like Doug Dalton doesn't care whether he has 5 star status or not.
I'd wager that some starred GM's only have their stars because they volunteer to run tables. Not because they are actually fantastic at it. Should we start a subjective ranking system to differentiate between the fantastic GM's and the average GM's too?
I don't really see what all the fuss is.
|
|
Promotion can't necessarily be tracked.. it's the promoters word vs. what is tangible...
tangible for a coordinator is how many tables they report for their GMs that would be about the only way that contributor/promoter "points" could be awarded.
Simply putting up a flyer or making a webpage doesn't work in my book to
|
|
Which isn't a lot since you can't/won't verify your 5-star status, and Paizo can't/won't verify it. Which is why I think people find it odd you have it.
Fair points. Regarding the above quote, no one (me or Paizo) is trying to hide anything. I've GM-ed more games that have been recorded. Some of them haven't been logged, many have not. Do I have 100+ games run? Probably not. Am I, in some way small or large, ultimately responsible for 300+ PFS tables (probably closer to 500) since the PFS OP campaign started ... Yes.
Did I do it all myself? Absolutely not. Has my team always done it perfectly? Nope. Callerack can clearly attest to that. :) Do my contributions, such that they are, make me any more important to the community that the player who just walked in the door and asked "What is Pathfinder?" No.
Does that answer your question? If not, I'll share more, not to pump myself up, but to share the other ways people can contribute if they cannot GM.
|
|
Promotion can't necessarily be tracked.. it's the promoters word vs. what is tangible...
tangible for a coordinator is how many tables they report for their GMs that would be about the only way that contributor/promoter "points" could be awarded.
Simply putting up a flyer or making a webpage doesn't work in my book to
Well I would assume that most long term on-going cons actually have decent business people behind them. As such, they most likely keep books on the con finances (profit / loss) reports.
As such, this information could be made public (not a likely scenario, as most people don't want to make personal financial information public) and tracked as well.
The growth over time could also be measured by the table's run per con number. And realistically the value of a con coordinator shouldn't necessarily be gauged on a raw number, but rather the value of the growth quotient from con to con.
|
|
I just think it's a slippery slope to award a 5-star rating without a change to the rules as it currently stands. I mean, I could make a serious case for getting my local VC Mike Brock to get 5-star status based upon contributions to PFS through the Cons he's run (80+ tables at 2 Cons) / still runs and helping to grow PFS in the state of Georgia and setting up a website for us to coordinate everything through (and that doesn't cover half of it). And I know he'll get there one day, but the thing is I'm sure everyone is going to want to make a case for someone to obtain 5-star status if we don't have set-in stone standards to follow. I mean, PFS is hard on players about the rules that we have to follow (feats to take, items to buy, etc.), so why should GM star rating be so lax and fluid? It's not consistent and that shows a slight weakness in integrity.
I do think that the current way to become a 5-star needs to change, but into what is something I haven't put much thought in to. I will say I think there might needs to be separate distinctions between GM and organizer recognition. But I don't think organizing events should allow you to get access to 4 / 5 star GM specials to run because organizing an event doesn't prove your mettle for running a scenario. You may be great at both, and that's fine. I think you need to have recognition system in each area that earns different benefits.
/Not to be taken as a slight against you DD, I'm just uncomfortable with the implications of the decision.
|
|
I like me some Doug Daulton and I like me some Kyle Baird, and quite honestly, I think both of you would like each other quite a bit. (Stupid Internet)
Adam - I know (or at least hope) no one on this thread is levying an actual personal attack against me. If they were, I would shrug and go on about my business. I don't feed trolls.
Kyle - Thanks for the nice note on Facebook. We are cool.
At the end of the day, ideas solve more problems than rants and I think everybody is really trying to express ideas, not venom.
|
|
tangible for a coordinator is how many tables they report for their GMs that would be about the only way that contributor/promoter "points" could be awarded
This is a great idea. Sort of a "meta-chronicle" for the show/event and organizers?
Simply putting up a flyer or making a webpage doesn't work in my book to
I agree in principle. But what about folks like the online PF SRD or PathfinderWiki? There is a lot of work that happens there to support both Pathfinder and PFS?
|
|
Should we start a subjective ranking system to differentiate between the fantastic GM's and the average GM's too?
YES! I think that would be awesome. I think it would be great for players to be able to take their chronicle sheet, and your GM number on it and rate you at home. Thus you'd have Doug Miles Rated as a 100% 5-star GM, etc, and avg. GM would probably be 75% 2-star GM
Further, I think the star system should be extended. Not just 5-stars, but probably 10 stars.
5-star = 150
6-star = 210
7-Star = 280 and so on.
Or, actually looking at the above, how about GM Levels, and the 5 star be a rating average. So Doug Miles would be a level 8 GM with a 4.9/5 star avg.
|
|
Should we start a subjective ranking system to differentiate between the fantastic GM's and the average GM's too?YES! I think that would be awesome. I think it would be great for players to be able to take their chronicle sheet, and your GM number on it and rate you at home. Thus you'd have Doug Miles Rated as a 100% 5-star GM, etc, and avg. GM would probably be 75% 2-star GM
Further, I think the star system should be extended. Not just 5-stars, but probably 10 stars.
5-star = 150
6-star = 210
7-Star = 280 and so on.Or, actually looking at the above, how about GM Levels, and the 5 star be a rating average. So Doug Miles would be a level 8 GM with a 4.9/5 star avg.
I see a "Lord of the Flies" situation percolating with a subjective ranking system. I was being ironic with the question.
|
|
But I don't think organizing events should allow you to get access to 4 / 5 star GM specials to run because organizing an event doesn't prove your mettle for running a scenario. You may be great at both, and that's fine. I think you need to have recognition system in each area that earns different benefits.
I agree. You should not, by default, get a 5-Star GM if you are not an awesome GM. At the risk of sounding like a self-important a$$, I think my players would ... without a cattle prod or bribe from me ... say that I run a pretty awesome game. So, it is not like I am a hack. :D
Having said that, I would agree that there should be specific rewards for being an exceptional GM, and that does not necessary mean a prolific one. We all know GMs who run a lot, but run a boring or rule-lawyery (sp?) table that sucks the fun out of a game. To me, that is why the jump from 4-star to 5-star is more subjective and less numbers driven.
/Not to be taken as a slight against you DD, I'm just uncomfortable with the implications of the decision.
No worries. I get it. And, as Mark has said, they are working on it.
|
|
I see a "Lord of the Flies" situation percolating with a subjective ranking system. I was being ironic with the question.Should we start a subjective ranking system to differentiate between the fantastic GM's and the average GM's too?YES! I think that would be awesome. I think it would be great for players to be able to take their chronicle sheet, and your GM number on it and rate you at home. Thus you'd have Doug Miles Rated as a 100% 5-star GM, etc, and avg. GM would probably be 75% 2-star GM
Further, I think the star system should be extended. Not just 5-stars, but probably 10 stars.
5-star = 150
6-star = 210
7-Star = 280 and so on.Or, actually looking at the above, how about GM Levels, and the 5 star be a rating average. So Doug Miles would be a level 8 GM with a 4.9/5 star avg.
I know you intended it to be a joke, but I saw potential in it. Having real experience with polling and perception with ratings. People will do 1 of 3 things normally. Rate honestly 1-5. Give a 5 or a 3 because they don't care, and only if they hate you, they'd give you a 1. Thus, in the long run, like in Doug Miles case, you'd get a real perception of him.
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
We currently have no metric for gauging how many sessions a coordinator has managed but we're looking into some possibilities. It likely won't overlap with the GM stars, which is why this whole issue has come up. Once we have more than a "we're working on it" to put forth, rest assured we'll let everyone know what it is.
|
|
YES! I think that would be awesome. I think it would be great for players to be able to take their chronicle sheet, and your GM number on it and rate you at home. Thus you'd have Doug Miles Rated as a 100% 5-star GM, etc, and avg. GM would probably be 75% 2-star GM
Further, I think the star system should be extended. Not just 5-stars, but probably 10 stars.
5-star = 150
6-star = 210
7-Star = 280 and so on.Or, actually looking at the above, how about GM Levels, and the 5 star be a rating average. So Doug Miles would be a level 8 GM with a 4.9/5 star avg.
Shoot me now. We have enough problems with people not being able to settle their table differences in person. I can't imagine the whinefest we'd have with a subjective GM ranking system where GMs are complaining about being ranked unfairly (especially running games last slot of a big Con) or players being let down by a high-ranked GM. Or hell, a GM entering in a higher score than his table gives him because GMs are typically the ones to enter that information in anyway.
It would be epic, but not the good kind of epic.
Personally I think the contributor situation like Doug's should be a step sideways.
It has nothing to do with actual GMing. However it is still every bit as important. As such it deserves rewards -- especially when it includes personal financial risk that isn't there for 'simply' (as inappropriate as that word might be) GMing.
I don't think that rating a contributor (in the sense that those that run Cons are) in the same system as you rank GMs is fair to either group.
These need to be rewarded in different ways with different systems -- so the GMs with the drive and passion to hit five star status don't have to contend with those making their job possible, and those that are making the GM's job possible don't feel shafted for all the time, energy and money they put into it.
I would suggest that contributors could get some of the following perks:
Paizo forum title -- almost like a 'badge' -- granted it's not much, but recognition is nice.
Choice table perks -- when not at the Con they are responsible at giving them a 'free pass' to a table of their choice at a different Con could be a nice gesture. It gives them a chance to rub elbows with the GM's they want to meet, and not worry about not doing their own jobs while at their own Con.
Exp Perks -- almost like what a GM would get but instead be based on the number of tables they get together at their con/event. So if you have 50 tables over the weekend that gets 'x' amount of Exp/whatever where if you have 200 tables that gets you a larger amount.
For judging criteria I suggest some of the following:
Community recognition -- reports back from the GMs involved about how smoothly or not the gaming went. Possibly reports back from the Attendees too. Maybe something were people can email someone about the website that was invaluable to them (in the case of PFSRD, or the Archives of Nethys) could be incorporated too.
Size of Event -- This could be the easiest way to help track such work too.
Number of Events -- pretty easy to understand. Those with the superhuman endurance to help run and set up more than a single event each year should be recognized for such.
Of course there is room for more on all fronts -- but just some ideas.
|
|
Stuff
While I agree the 4-star to 5-star jump is definitely subjective, it does have the hard rule of currently being a 4-star GM with 100+ scenarios GM'ed under your belt. In your case (from what I can tell), you are not currently a 4-star GM. I believe this is where the issue comes, and where I feel like there is a lack of consistency. Now I have no doubt your abilities as a GM, I just don't like the implications of lax rules (especially with how rigid PFS rules are maintained).
In any case, it looks like your contributions are more in line with what a VC is tasked with accomplishing. But it also seems like you already have a VC in your area. I hope I read that correctly.
Anyway, congrats on being a huge contributor to the organization and expansion of PFS in your area! I hope that one day, I too, will be able to offer my local community as much. :)
|
Wow, where to begin.
* A "star" rating GMs was, despite the laudable intent, a fairly poor idea in the first place. But okay.
* Rating GMs based on sessions run was a worse idea. Tolerable, but still pretty bad.
* Subsequently changing the rules, then acting on them without first communicating the changes? Well, that was just daft.
To those in charge: Stop. Take a deep breath. Read a book about communication. Plan before you act.
You are sowing chaos.
|
|
I'm relatively certain everything will be worked out by the end of the day tomorrow.
Everyone, take a deep breath.
I kinda just want to rage more and be very bombastic. I also want to alarm people how this is the death of PFS as we know it even though I really have nothing to base my opinion off of.
/If I roll high on my bluff check, it might work.
|
This is a long post. I hope it helps to understand the Vegas Community and the interaction between it, NeonCon, Paizo and Doug Dalton.
I've said many of the things here in discussions with my fellow Venture-Captains, so the information I present may not be new. I've also brought up a few of the points made by many of the posters in regards to GMing ranks. It wasn't until I read some of these remarks that ideas I'd not considered might need to be considred by others as well.
I've hidden parts that may be a bit prolix when viewed as a whole. This is my first time using spoiler, so lets hope I've done it right.
I've lived in Vegas since '94. In that time we've had a few Con's. SilverCon is one that some of us longtimer's still talk about. It was last held at the Sahara Hotel where someone knocked a lady down the escalator and there was an issue. That was 94-95. There were a couple much smaller ones. In 2000 there was Desert Wars. My dinning room was slightly smaller. There were no 'sanctioned games' for RPG's. It was maybe 5-6 tables of war games. Frank ran his 2e/3e game and gave out prizes on his own. I've known John Raymond as the second longest person here in town. He owned Dreamland Hobbies and helped me get my start with Greyhawk Games. I remember GAMA 2005 and talking about the name to Lisa Stevens - saying that as long as I don't try to become too big of a store, WotC wouldn't take notice. I had some minor Internet success with the store.
So I've been around the block with many things here in Vegas and gaming.
I've known Doug Dalton for several years.It started with the first NeonCon 2007 at Circus Circus. It was Living Greyhawk and we know how I feel about that. But I wanted to play and as I was heading to a Carolina Panthers game, I didn't sign up for anything. Doug was the guy at the front desk, helping people find games, register and do whatever else a Con Organizer does. Oh and he ran my pre-gen Dwarf Fighter through about four games over two days. It was not the best running from a GM or player standpoint. But then, how could it? There were about seven players each session and he was busy helping everybody else too. But it was decent enough.
There was/is a group of gamers called Sin City Ogres, but they were mostly Warhammer guys. From I know that pretty much grew the concept of Vegas Game Day. But I wasn't involved with VGD until John Raymond's home group and I decided to join PFS with the PF Beta/3.5 conversion. Many of them didn't want to commit to the game system (PF Beta). But I know Doug's been a force behind the scenes with VGD prior to NeonCon.Most importantly, he brought Las Vegas to the gaming community. Sure people know Vegas for our glitzy strippers and loose change, but we aren't an RPG Community. Our stores have PF books, but one is a Magic store, with two others being primarily comic and miniature gaming. And of course, HobbyTown USA. So RPG's aren't the thing for the local community.
So I was suprised when Josh posted that Vegas was to get a Venture-Captain spot. I was shocked, really. I cannot figure out how we report more PFS play than Chicago? Chitown has what, 8 million people, and Vegas has 2million? Oh well, I thought I'd still apply for the job. Before I submitted my application, I called Steve Pitcher the Director of NeonCon to ask for a letter of recommendation. He said yes. I also called Doug Dalton and asked for his. He said yes. He also said that while he'd recommend me for the VC position he too was applying for it.
He later pulled his name from the running. From what I understand there were a couple other people that had also applied. I don't know if I'm more qualified then they were or not. I do however love being the Las Vegas Lodge Venture-Captain for the Pathfinder Society.
I've been a huge supporter of NeonCon in anyway possible. I made flyers and passed them out to stores, wore my NeonCon shirt and at this last one helped at the assistant PFS coordinator. I will likely ask to do so again for 2011, if not even more. So while I applaud his efforts for the Pathfinder Community as a whole, what he's done for the Vegas Community is much more.
I've not always seen eye to eye with Doug. When Midnight Mauler came out, I was shocked that I wasn't the only one in Vegas running it. I asked around and nobody could tell me that he was a five star GM. Not at first at any rate. So I asked him about it. I even had a 3 hour sit down meeting with Doug regarding it, NeonCon and Pathfinder in general.
During most of our meeting, I was stand-offish, dismissive and un-welcoming. Even afterwards. It wasn't until a couple of days later that I reflected on it. It was about two weeks later that I responded to him positively. My attitude has continued to change for the better. I didn't see him run Midnight Mauler as I was busy running a table of over flows. But our discussion has changed VGD for the better. We've had a couple months with our changes and the constant PFS'ers enjoy the change. But what I heard was positive things from his running.
Running modules makes you, by the current definition, a particular star GM. I'll be a three star soon, but I'm still learning the rules. Rules aren't my style, Marty gets me all the time. But knowing the rules aren't part of being a particular star GM. It's assumed that after 30+ years I should know them. Same with being a two star GM. You should know the rules relatively well - but it isn't a hard and fast requirement. A PFS Home Group GM could just as easily fake the rules well enough and report some sessions and earn a star.
So maybe the defintion needs to be broader yet, more concise. Maybe community involvement should be a requirement for particular stars. It, like knowing the rules is assumed, but not required.
Doug Dalton's work with NeonCon and VGD is important. He's facilitating gaming in general. He has helped me secure a GM or two when needed (like April's VGD). He did a streaming live event throughout GenCon 2010, he had workshops at NeonCon 2010 that allowed attendee's to have some input into the Ninja and Samurai. Hearing Jason talk about watching samurai movies as inspiration and SKR getting us back on track after a turn of events is something that cannot be equated into stars.
This isn't the same as Rene (Arizona VC) or Robyn (LA VC) being the coordinators for NeonCon and GameX. While I cannot fully attest to the demands as PFS coordinators for a con, I cannot believe they would be as demanding as the one needed as the Con Organizer. Doug Dalton may not 'deserve' a five star GM rating, because the 2007 results haven't been completely reported (I know, some of mine are missing too), or because he hasn't GM'd 100 games. But calling on Paizo, Erik Mona and Josh to come out to a 2nd year con and make it into a national event has to count for something.
I agree that some might not consider him a true five star GM. I've wondered the same thing. I wondered, prior to this, if we had a special tag listing five star GM's if people would question his rating. Evidently that is the case. I think that it would be wrong to remove his rating, and a dismissive nature to not accept it and be unwilling to sit at a table with him as the GM. I think that under optimal conditions we would all be like DougDoug and run a bazillion games and organize events if we could. But some people run games and some people create a convention to facilitate gaming where none stood before. Instead, let us remove DougDoug from the equation, like a bell curve and realize that there are great GM's out there that have no stars and good GM's that have three stars and GM's that do for the community that is not reflected in the current terms.
As it stands, Doug Dalton is a Five Star GM. Doug Dalton is a Five Star Convention Coordinator. Doug Dalton is a Five Star Community Gamer.
Theocrat Issak
Two Star GM and Venture-Captain
|
We currently have no metric for gauging how many sessions a coordinator has managed but we're looking into some possibilities. It likely won't overlap with the GM stars, which is why this whole issue has come up. Once we have more than a "we're working on it" to put forth, rest assured we'll let everyone know what it is.
Just add a Coordinator column to the reporting table, with a check box that says 'same as GM.' That's about as streamlined for the actual reporting as you could do. Or you can just attach a Coordinator PFS ID on the actual event created and all session reported off that event would automatically inherit that ID.
I'm genuinely surprised that people seem to be so invested in this "star" system. I guess it's mildly interesting to know how many sessions a particular GM has run, but is there any other purpose to the stars other than access to the occasional special module?
|
|
I would suggest that contributors could get some of the following perks:Paizo forum title -- almost like a 'badge' -- granted it's not much, but recognition is nice.
Choice table perks -- when not at the Con they are responsible at giving them a 'free pass' to a table of their choice at a different Con could be a nice gesture. It gives them a chance to rub elbows with the GM's they want to meet, and not worry about not doing their own jobs while at their own Con.
Exp Perks -- almost like what a GM would get but instead be based on the number of tables they get together at their con/event. So if you have 50 tables over the weekend that gets 'x' amount of Exp/whatever where if you have 200 tables that gets you a larger amount.For judging criteria I suggest some of the following:
Community recognition -- reports back from the GMs involved about how smoothly or not the gaming went. Possibly reports back from the Attendees too. Maybe something were people can email someone about the website that was invaluable to them (in the case of PFSRD, or the Archives of Nethys) could be incorporated too.
Size of Event -- This could be the easiest way to help track such work too.
Number of Events -- pretty easy to...
Excellent, practical suggestions!
|
|
Doug does a ton of work and runs a great Con! Recognizing his hard work is cool idea.
I would steer clear of the GM star system only because it was set up for a different reason.
Our local Venture-Captain, JP, also does an incredible job organizing for our big Conventions and assists with tons of little ones. So besides his GM star, I hope he gets some feather in his cap as well.
GMs and Coordinators should be recognized, but they are two different tasks and should be viewed that way. My guess is that most folks will qualify for both.
Doug - Thanks for NeonCon! I had a blast!
|
|
I have read the posts. They have been weighed, measured, and found points on both sides. I have to say I agree with points on both sides, but I think that from what I have read Doug has earned his 5-star status. No, he may not have the 100+ mods under his belt but from what I can tell he has certainly contriubted to the growth of the Society, Pathfinder, the hobby, and gaming as a whole. I thoroughly congradulate him and wish Doug the best in his future endeavors.
With regards to the points being made against his status. I see and understand your points, but since there currently is no other system in place to recognize the efforts that Doug (and others) have put forth it is only logical that he be presented with this distinction. Yes, I agree it may not be an accurate discription of what he has done, but it's the only one we currently have. I think he, and anyone else, who puts forth that much effort, time, virve, gumption, and what ever other synonym for hard work has earned this distinction. And I thoroughly congradulate him on it.
|
|
I'm genuinely surprised that people seem to be so invested in this "star" system. I guess it's mildly interesting to know how many sessions a particular GM has run, but is there any other purpose to the stars other than access to the occasional special module?
I don't really care about the star system per se; I just see the present situation as another sign that the PFS "powers that be" don't really have any experience managing communication or change, and frankly, it shows.
Look, I'm the first guy to point and laugh at corporate America's self-important buffoonery, but there is something to be said for doing things in a controlled, ordered, and well-planned manner. I'm not suggesting Paizo hire a PR firm, or install certified project managers -- just that they stop and think about things they're considering, and how people are likely to react, before they do them.
It should not have been difficult to foresee that something like this would happen.
|
|
Our local Venture-Captain, JP, also does an incredible job organizing for our big Conventions and assists with tons of little ones. So besides his GM star, I hope he gets some feather in his cap as well.
Thanks for the shout-out!
About Doug's status... I personally know Doug as a con organizer, but mostly as a dear and personal friend.
While jealous of his 5 stars (to my 3), I don't see a problem with it. Doug is a pillar of the gaming community in the west (I would dare to compare him to Dave Christ in the "east"). I trust the powers that be to bestow the number of stars to people they deem deserve it.
That said, I think Dave's point of separating GMs and Coordinator is intriguing and quite valid. I GM my fair share, but local organizers really make me look good ;)
(JP goes off to take this up with the PTB)
JP
|
|
I have read the posts. They have been weighed, measured, and found points on both sides. I have to say I agree with points on both sides, but I think that from what I have read Doug has earned his 5-star status. No, he may not have the 100+ mods under his belt but from what I can tell he has certainly contriubted to the growth of the Society, Pathfinder, the hobby, and gaming as a whole. I thoroughly congradulate him and wish Doug the best in his future endeavors.
With regards to the points being made against his status. I see and understand your points, but since there currently is no other system in place to recognize the efforts that Doug (and others) have put forth it is only logical that he be presented with this distinction. Yes, I agree it may not be an accurate discription of what he has done, but it's the only one we currently have. I think he, and anyone else, who puts forth that much effort, time, virve, gumption, and what ever other synonym for hard work has earned this distinction. And I thoroughly congradulate him on it.
+1
|
|
...just that they stop and think about things they're considering, and how people are likely to react, before they do them.
It should not have been difficult to foresee that something like this would happen.
And perhaps they did do this. And perhaps they did forsee it. But perhaps, just perhaps, it was a change/decision/clarification they felt was necessary anyways.
Just because the change/decision/clarification is not something you like, does not mean it isn't a good change/decision/clarification. And just because a vocal minority are crying about it, does not mean it shouldn't have been changed/decided/clarified.
At some point, regardless of what perceived feedback might be, if a decision has to be made, they gotta inform the players that the decision has been made.
|
|
And perhaps they did do this. And perhaps they did forsee it. But perhaps, just perhaps, it was a change/decision/clarification they felt was necessary anyways.
Just because the change/decision/clarification is not something you like, does not mean it isn't a good change/decision/clarification. And just because a vocal minority are crying about it, does not mean it shouldn't have been changed/decided/clarified.
At some point, regardless of what perceived feedback might be, if a decision has to be made, they gotta inform the players that the decision has been made.
And perhaps, just perhaps, one should take the time to understand what was actually being said before tossing off an ill-considered response?
A careful reader would have noted that the thrust of my message was communication. Irrespective of whether or not I like the change (I don't really care), the change was clearly NOT communicated in advance. Further, this is simply the most recent example in a string of poorly managed changes to the campaign.
Thanks bugleyman for your contributions and posts. 99% of the time we carefully review what we're going to say and how we're going to say it. We're far from perfect but we try our best and can always do better. Do we sometimes post without thinking everything through? You bet, but often we've discussed it for days, with various groups here in the office before we post. And sometimes we haven't thought of everything. When we do make mistakes we try to correct them and then move on, hoping to not make that mistake again, just new ones. :)
Hyrum.
|
|
Thanks bugleyman for your contributions and posts. 99% of the time we carefully review what we're going to say and how we're going to say it. We're far from perfect but we try our best and can always do better. Do we sometimes post without thinking everything through? You bet, but often we've discussed it for days, with various groups here in the office before we post. And sometimes we haven't thought of everything. When we do make mistakes we try to correct them and then move on, hoping to not make that mistake again, just new ones. :)
Hyrum.
Why not run whatever ideas you have past the player base, and if the player base is receptive to the change overall, then make an official change? That way all the small things you guys wouldn't think of but player 232890 does can be communicated so you don't have to back pedal from an official statement, and just have to change the hypothetical change.
|
|
Thanks bugleyman for your contributions and posts. 99% of the time we carefully review what we're going to say and how we're going to say it. We're far from perfect but we try our best and can always do better. Do we sometimes post without thinking everything through? You bet, but often we've discussed it for days, with various groups here in the office before we post. And sometimes we haven't thought of everything. When we do make mistakes we try to correct them and then move on, hoping to not make that mistake again, just new ones. :)
Hyrum.
Please understand: I only comment because I care. Further, I don't mean to be a douche about it. I just hate to see people make the same mistakes I've made (albeit in other contexts).
My $.02 would be to keep quiet about the changes until you are ready to show the complete picture of what PFS is going to look like come next season. I imagine that is difficult, because you're planning many cool things and want to share them, but revealing the changes piecemeal seems bound to cause unnecessary frustration. If you leave blanks, people will fill them -- with speculation if necessary -- that's just human nature. Also, if you're planning to change things into which people have put a lot of their time and effort (like the star system), they should hear it from you guys first. Otherwise, you get...well, this. :P
|
|
Thanks to Issak, JP, MadClaw, and others who've had kind words for me. They are appreciated. Still, this thread is not about me. It is, at it's root, about building a better Pathfinder Society.
With that said, we should be clear that the Pathfinder Society is not broken, far from it. It is the most robust, well-supported, forward-thinking organized play campaign for roleplay ... on the planet. From Erik to Mark, the folks at Paizo have put a great deal of time, energy and thought into PS and it shows on the page and at the table.
Of all of the fundamental components of PS, there is only one with which I strongly disagreed at launch ... no regional "triads" who could create independent story lines as we were able to do in LG. And, now 3+ years in, I see the wisdom of that decision and support it. The quality of PS Scenarios is consistently high and, when I actually get to play or run, I find it a much more entertaining experience than any other OP campaign I've played in ... hands down.
Could communication be better? Perhaps. But then, from the smallest mom & pop shop to the largest corporation, communication can ALWAYS be better. What other RPG publisher do you know that has practically every staffer, from the CEO to the CSR, engaged on the public messageboards everyday?
At the end of the day, we are all very lucky. We've got a game we all love, supported by staff and volunteers who love it just as much each of us. And, the publisher actively listens to the community.
DD
|
|
Thanks to Issak, JP, MadClaw, and others who've had kind words for me. They are appreciated. Still, this thread is not about me. It is, at it's root, about building a better Pathfinder Society.
With that said, we should be clear that the Pathfinder Society is not broken, far from it. It is the most robust, well-supported, forward-thinking organized play campaign for roleplay ... on the planet. From Erik to Mark, the folks at Paizo have put a great deal of time, energy and thought into PS and it shows on the page and at the table.
Of all of the fundamental components of PS, there is only one with which I strongly disagreed at launch ... no regional "triads" who could create independent story lines as we were able to do in LG. And, now 3+ years in, I see the wisdom of that decision and support it. The quality of PS Scenarios is consistently high and, when I actually get to play or run, I find it a much more entertaining experience than any other OP campaign I've played in ... hands down.
Could communication be better? Perhaps. But then, from the smallest mom & pop shop to the largest corporation, communication can ALWAYS be better. What other RPG publisher do you know that has practically every staffer, from the CEO to the CSR, engaged on the public messageboards everyday?
At the end of the day, we are all very lucky. We've got a game we all love, supported by staff and volunteers who love it just as much each of us. And, the publisher actively listens to the community.
DD
+1
|
|
It has nothing to do with actual GMing.
Missed this earlier. BTW, none of the following is intended to challenge the basic assertions Abraham makes. Rather, I'd like to expand on this one point a bit.
For context, I'll assume "it" is running & organizing game days and conventions. On this point, I'd offer that knowing what it takes to be an excellent GM is very, very important to any gaming event organizer. And, this knowledge should be based on personal experience both as a GM and as a player.
To run a good event, the organizer has to be able to put him/herself in the shoes of the player & the GM and make sure the GMs selected to run an event are not just bodies to fill the chair and make playable tables. At NeonCon, we are fairly selective about who runs official PS (or other OP events). We aren't selective to be clique-ish. People pay money to attend the show, we want them to have a good time.
Some folks are great home game GMs, but have a hard time fitting into the slot structure of a convention GM. So, their games tend to run over and players miss or are late to the next slot. Other GMs are a tad too rules-focused and can make what should be a fun, exciting adventure seem like a math lesson or root canal. Still others have ... how to put this delicately ... issues with hygiene or general social skills.
In every case, we set our expectations in advance and, when a GM struggles, we try our best to coach them up and give them every chance to be the best GM possible. In short, we have standards, but we are not jerks about it.
At the end of the day, we always try to remember that there are 4-7 other players at the table, not just the GM. If our team did not have a good understanding of the skill set required of a good GM, I don't think our show would enjoy the reputation it has among the player & GM base.
DD
That said, I think it’s appropriate that there are different classifications for folks promoting Pathfinder, Pathfinder Society, and the hobby in general when it comes to receiving little rewards. (Personally, my reward is hearing about folks playing and having a good time, especially if it's something I added to the hobby.)
GM’s (of all stars, really) work their asses off. Those gathering a constellation work their asses off running tables, coordinating tables, and being the big man at conventions all across the globe to get the special events. Folks like Doug rent out entire convention centers at hotels on the Vegas strip to host those special events, as well as bunches of other games. Not just coordinating a convention, but creating and building one.
Hell, my dumb ass has access to some of the *special events* due to my contributor status (not that I’m running that stuff; just reading it so I can keep things clear in future work.)
So, yeah, it’d be interesting to see different denominations of status, especially if it keeps from fracturing an already small hobby. It’s a shame when I see folks with the same intentions grumbling over specific details. Kinda counterproductive, if you ask me.
But that’s just, like, my opinion, man.
Well said on all fronts.
|
|
Ok, I can understand, and get the reasoning behind your 5-star. Now, my question turns to why have only you gotten it, and not any other PFS oriented con organizer? Are there no other PFS con organizers out there? Mike Brock comes to mind, both a GM and Con organizer. Probably not an answer Doug D. can answer, but still the question remains. Why not every con organizer of a certain PFS table size limit?
|
Venture-Captain, Missouri—Cape Girardeau
|
I must say that I am intrigued by all the discussion about the GM star system when it comes to organizers. I serve our area as both a GM and a PFS organizer for our local conventions. To facilitate the play of PFS, I spend a lot of time making pathfinder Organized play happen at one of our local cons twice. I don't run tables: I organize what gets played, muster who gets to play them, make sure all the GMs are supplied with scenarios, chronicles, and reporting sheets, sign up new players,and in general, answer all questions simultaneously form the 5-7 tables we have operating at any given slot/time. This is why I have a three star GM, and two almost three star GMs that coordinate through me, while I have a measly two stars. They carry quite the burden of running sessions, while I carry the weight of reporting all the tables (and the list above!)
I understand how some hard-working GMs would be put out by what seemed a GM-exclusive ranking system. And I agree that convention coordinators need to be recognized for the hard-work they do as well. I await patiently to see what Hyrum, Mark and the others at Paizo come up with...and I have faith it will be great!
|
Ok, I can understand, and get the reasoning behind your 5-star. Now, my question turns to why have only you gotten it, and not any other PFS oriented con organizer? Are there no other PFS con organizers out there? Mike Brock comes to mind, both a GM and Con organizer. Probably not an answer Doug D. can answer, but still the question remains. Why not every con organizer of a certain PFS table size limit?
+1
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Ok, true to my word, this has been resolved, at least internally, by the end of the day. (As long as I haven't gone home yet, it's still "today," right?)
I don't want to get into specifics of what we decided, because like everything to do with the scoring and reporting side of PFS, in order to implement changes we need to get it on the programmers' to do list.
It's obvious that we need a way to thank and reward coordinators similar to the GM Star program, but different from it. As soon as that system is implemented, folks will be honored appropriately for the area of their contribution. In this specific case, our previous campaign coordinator honored Doug Daulton for his awesome job coordinating PFS conventions in the Vegas area and pushing Pathfinder in general with a GM Star ranking. He did this from a good-hearted place, and offered the only sort of recognition that existed at the time.
This happened, apparently, more than 6 months ago, but only recently became an issue when other GMs--who are working really hard to earn that elusive 5th star--took issue with how Doug received his.
Doug didn't do anything wrong, of course, and has been a huge ally of the Pathfinder Society since before there even was a Pathfinder Society. But beyond that, he is not the only coordinator who has sweat blood to ensure that this campaign is popular and successful, so the proper response is not to punish Doug, but rather to create a way to give similar recognition to other coordinators, who make their own important contribution to the success of the campaign without getting personal or sniping at each other.
Until this new system is in place, Doug will keep his GM ranking. I ask those of you upset by this to simply deal with it for a while until we get the solution in place. Because once that solution is in place, Doug's rating will be shifted over to a different column for Coordination, which is an accolade he richly deserves. A lot of other folks, many of them probably reading this message right now, also deserve accolades for their non-judging contribution to the campaign, and we are excited to be able to implement that.
In the meantime, I think it's important to keep in mind that we are all members of the Pathfinder Society, and we all want what is best for the campaign. Every so often, we geniuses at HQ are going to make a mistake or not fully think something through, and this is one of those cases. I ask that you guys bear with us while we attempt to fix these problems as they become known to us, but most of all I ask that we all respect our fellow gamers, leave the anger and bitterness outside, and work together to improve the campaign.
The Pathfinder Society has a great HQ staff that is truly dedicated to creating the finest organized play campaign we can possibly make.
Acknowledging the contributions of event coordinators is a great way to make our great society even better, but doing it by short-changing hard-working judges (or creating the appearance of such) is not the appropriate way to do it.
We've figured out the appropriate way to do it, and once implemented, Doug Daulton and a lot of other folks will get the accolades they truly deserve.
Until then, I urge everyone to focus on their own star rating, and not worry too much about the ratings of anyone else.
This will sort itself out very shortly.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Ok, I can understand, and get the reasoning behind your 5-star. Now, my question turns to why have only you gotten it, and not any other PFS oriented con organizer? Are there no other PFS con organizers out there? Mike Brock comes to mind, both a GM and Con organizer. Probably not an answer Doug D. can answer, but still the question remains. Why not every con organizer of a certain PFS table size limit?+1
The honest answer here is that the previous campaign coordinator cut a deal with Doug to honor his contribution the best way he could at the time, and it ended up blowing up several months later.
A more equitable system should have been put in place at the very beginning, and the gears are finally turning to make that happen as soon as possible.
Ok, true to my word, this has been resolved, at least internally, by the end of the day. (As long as I haven't gone home yet, it's still "today," right?)
I don't want to get into specifics of what we decided, because like everything to do with the scoring and reporting side of PFS, in order to implement changes we need to get it on the programmers' to do list.
It's obvious that we need a way to thank and reward coordinators similar to the GM Star program, but different from it. As soon as that system is implemented, folks will be honored appropriately for the area of their contribution. In this specific case, our previous campaign coordinator honored Doug Daulton for his awesome job coordinating PFS conventions in the Vegas area and pushing Pathfinder in general with a GM Star ranking. He did this from a good-hearted place, and offered the only sort of recognition that existed at the time.
This happened, apparently, more than 6 months ago, but only recently became an issue when other GMs--who are working really hard to earn that elusive 5th star--took issue with how Doug received his.
Doug didn't do anything wrong, of course, and has been a huge ally of the Pathfinder Society since before there even was a Pathfinder Society. But beyond that, he is not the only coordinator who has sweat blood to ensure that this campaign is popular and successful, so the proper response is not to punish Doug, but rather to create a way to give similar recognition to other coordinators, who make their own important contribution to the success of the campaign.
Until this new system is in place, Doug will keep his GM ranking. I ask those of you upset by this to simply deal with it for a while until we get the solution in place. Because once that solution is in place, Doug's rating will be shifted over to a different column for Coordination, which is an accolade he richly deserves. A lot of other folks, many of them probably reading this message right now, also deserve accolades for their non-judging contribution to...
Very well said, and it sounds like an excellent solution.