|
What if we make the requirements like Highlander?
Kill an existing GM on a table and you can have their stars! That would reinforce the whole "there can only be one" thing. And it would justify why Kyle is a 5-star GM. :)
Rubia
Since Kyle didn't kill me at the table I sat at he ran, and if I kill him at my table next time, does that mean I get all 5 of his stars so I can be an 8 star GM?
|
|
After February, even a 0-star judge can really start working toward their 5th star by running Midnight Mauler.
I question this conclusion. It is my understanding that in February when Midnight Mauler becomes available to everyone, it no longer will qualify as a 'special' for 4 & 5 star GMs.
-Swiftbrook
|
|
After February, even a 0-star judge can really start working toward their 5th star by running Midnight Mauler.I question this conclusion. It is my understanding that in February when Midnight Mauler becomes available to everyone, it no longer will qualify as a 'special' for 4 & 5 star GMs.
-Swiftbrook
I question your understanding.
|
What if we make the requirements like Highlander?
Kill an existing GM on a table and you can have their stars! That would reinforce the whole "there can only be one" thing. And it would justify why Kyle is a 5-star GM. :)
Rubia
My character died at a table last weekend, so I guess I just lost my stars :(
Congratulations Phe, you're now a 4-Star GM after only two sessions!
Cheers,
Stephen (DarkWhite)
Pathfinder Society 0-Star GM
Venture-Captain, Australia
|
I question your understanding.After February, even a 0-star judge can really start working toward their 5th star by running Midnight Mauler.I question this conclusion. It is my understanding that in February when Midnight Mauler becomes available to everyone, it no longer will qualify as a 'special' for 4 & 5 star GMs.
-Swiftbrook
I Understand your questioning but I question that understandment.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I Understand your questioning but I question that understandment.I question your understanding.After February, even a 0-star judge can really start working toward their 5th star by running Midnight Mauler.I question this conclusion. It is my understanding that in February when Midnight Mauler becomes available to everyone, it no longer will qualify as a 'special' for 4 & 5 star GMs.
-Swiftbrook
I question your questioning his questioning that understatement.
|
|
I question your understanding.After February, even a 0-star judge can really start working toward their 5th star by running Midnight Mauler.I question this conclusion. It is my understanding that in February when Midnight Mauler becomes available to everyone, it no longer will qualify as a 'special' for 4 & 5 star GMs.
-Swiftbrook
The Midnight Mauler is an exclusive adventure to be run only by 4-star GMs and Venture-Captains for its first year.
Upon earning his fourth star, a Game Master gains access to exclusive scenarios that can only be run by Paizo staff, Venture-Captains (see chapter 7), and four-star GMs for 1 full year before being made publicly available for all GMs to run. Four-star GMs who have run 50 special or exclusive scenarios (over the course of their careers) are awarded a fifth star for their dedication to the campaign.As of February 2012, Midnight Mauler will no longer be a VC & 4-star GM "exclusive scenario" as anyone can purchase it. Now, how things are actually managed is a different story. Most importantly, we all know that this is only about Bragging Rights!
In order to both encourage more reporting from GMs and event coordinators and to offer a “bragging rights” type of reward for GMs, Pathfinder Society Organized Play offers a GM ranking system.
All I know is that I've played at the table to three of the 5-star GM's and I don't care if they're 1-star or 5-star. Each one is a far better GM than I'll ever be and I'd play at there table anytime!
-Swiftbrook
|
I personally like of a recommendation system being set up. I think some sort of peer review system (by players, other GMs, VCs, and/or Paizo staff) is a better judge of who should be a five star GM then just earning notches for our belt.
Is this a bad time to point out that none of my PCs have ever died?..But Joe... Neither you, nor Mike, nor Kyle have ever killed me. But I've killed you! (Well, turned you into a Shadow, I count that as a death :P)Oh don't worry. I will get my revenge!
Myself also. Not that I have not had close calls or anything. Helps when the other players at the table ask you to just play your casters who are safer in the back of the party (and has escape contingencies in place should things go bad).
I'd suggest making the fifth star dependent on running at least 50 or 100 *different* scenarios. That way it's something everyone can aim for, even if it takes a long time, and it guarantees that the 5 star GMs didn't just run the same scenario 200 times...
Whilst 5 stars is about dedication, someone who's run a game every week for two years without break for his local group is pretty dedicated, and it also ensures the 5 star GM has a well rounded view of the campaign.
|
|
We all need to decide what the 5-star rating is indicating. At it's inception, my understanding was that it was a measure of a GM's dedication to the society. IMO, that does not reflect the quality of the GM, only that they are willing to commit hundreds if not thousands of hours to providing a fun gaming experience to players.
It stands to reason that the more you do something, the better you get. So it is reasonable to think that 4&5 star GM's tend to be some of the best. That is not to say that GM's with fewer (or no) stars are worse, just a general statement that with practice comes mastery. I personally know of a few low-star GM's that are much better than I am and I try to observe their games as often as I can to gain tips and tricks to improve my skills.
If this is the case, then a simple system to measure quantity is sufficient. No matter how you define it, some GM's are going to be overly challenged to reach the goal. Whether it be running at multiple venues, running all the scenarios, running special events, etc.
Perhaps we need to reconsider the "50 special events" requirement as being too challenging. But what is the alternative? I am 99.9% sure that whatever you come up with, there will be a group of GM's crying foul.
OTOH, If we decide that the star system is a measure of a GM's quality, then we have a completely different situation. The tools needed to measure that would likely be much more difficult to define and measure.
|
Regional Venture-Coordinator, Mediterranean
|
We all need to decide what the 5-star rating is indicating.
OTOH, If we decide that the star system is a measure of a GM's quality, then we have a completely different situation. The tools needed to measure that would likely be much more difficult to define and measure.
We don't want to fall into the trap of only measuring what is easy to measure rather than what is important to us.
So I agree that the important first step is to decide just what the star rating system is supposed to signify and reward.
|
|
While I agree that any solution will generate complaints, the goal isn't to mitigate complaints completely 100%. The issue we face down in Georgia is an issue that other areas will soon face as PFS continues to grow and flourish. This would not have been as big a problem if the ruling had not put the cart before the horse.
You can have a 50 special scenario limit, but you need to first supply more opportunities that count towards that limit. As it has been pointed out, the multi-table events are way too restrictive due to the number of tables needed to legally run the scenario (good luck finding a FLGS or home that can support that btw, especially Year of the Ruby Phoenix). Also, having one exclusive that lasts for a year (Midnight Mauler) isn't enough (especially if you have a zealous VC who will have ran it for well over 3/4ths of the current player base - Mike is a beast).
I mean if dedication to the campaign is rubric by which we gauge a GM, why not count how many games a person has run at conventions? That information is currently being tracked right now through event #s and titles.
But like Bob said, we need to first decide what the star system measures, and then work from there. Better to plan the race course first rather than the finish line.
|
|
I would also like to add I am not in favor of a more "subjective" system like having players rate their GMs. Besides the fact I will be judged negatively for coup de gracing people I've never GM'ed for (inside joke), there will not be a huge turnout of players to rate their peers.
PFS already has a hard time getting folks to make sure they report their scenarios, and that's just from the GMs and store coordinators who should report things that need to be reported. Looking at the different scenarios, you don't find that many ratings being put up at all. And that's after considering the thousands of players some of these scenarios have been run for. Those two things make me feel that a more subjective rating of GMs will flop because you won't get the turnout you'd like in order to make it a valuable system. And that's without getting in to the potential bad blood folks might experience by not getting rated well.