|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Adding (or subtracting) modifiers from a social DC is perfectly acceptable if the characters, in the GM's estimation, are being jerks towards the NPC.
This. They are called circumstance penalties or bonuses. Player actions can create them, and then you live with the consequences, IC.
|
|
We all have to remember that organized play is more limiting than open-rules, home-games and attempt to stay of target from both sides of the screen
I agree; that is the crux of the argument. Playing in Society is more limiting, for both the players AND the GM (emphasis on GM). You are correct in saying that both sides have boundaries that they must play in (as outlined by the Society rules in their many forms and sources).
But just because a player steps outside those bounds (by having his character act like a jerk to an NPC, for example) you seem to see it as the player is breaking an unwritten contract between themselves and the GM, at which point, the GM is free to step outside the bounds themselves and apply whatever "circumstantial" bonuses/penalties they see fit (even though they are not in the module).
I am of the opinion that the GM, as the professional running the game, should be mature and lead by example. Yes a player may step out of bounds with their character, so guide them back using the written word of the module (and the Society). At the very least you owe that to the other players at the table that are playing within bounds and do not deserve to be penalized (by having to make harder rolls or paying more for passage - the other five players at a table are not responsible for the actions of the single out of bounds player). Its your job, as GM, to run the game; not teach lessons.
LIMIT table variance and create equal opportunities for FUN for ALL.
It seems that some GMs are more interested in their fun than the fun of the other six people at the table they are responsible for. And we are all lesser for it as a Society, IMHO.
|
Wait, so you're saying that if I get up and walk away from a horrible session, that the GM has the right to just kill off my character because he's sore at me, and we don't mesh as players? I can understand saying I can't replay that adventure if it's mid-adventure, but that seems a bit excessive IMO.In my opinion, if you didn't wait for the GM to fill out a chronicle sheet for you and he has no way of getting in touch with you later (at a convention, for example) then yes. Your PC has not exited the adventure properly and anything could happen to it.
By the same token, a GM should not make a player wait if they decide to leave - beyond a reasonable delay to finish a battle or social interaction. He should complete your chronicle sheet at the earliest break in the action.
Again, this is my opinion. I do not believe this is stated anywhere in the rules.
Wow, Don. I have to say that I don't agree with this sentiment at all. Walking away from a game table isn't something the average gamer would do lightly, but it is something a mature and thoughtful player might do to avoid both an unenjoyable time and an argument.
I'm not advocating walking away. It's poor form in nearly every case since it likely costs your fellow players success in the mission. I sat through a blindingly bad game at GenCon out of respect for my fellow players. That said, walking away could easily be a better alternative than wasting several hours with an obnoxious, petty or just plain bad GM, or as in the OP, one that punishes the entire group for the perceived transgressions of a single player.
Lord knows I've walked away from more than one bad non-PFS game.
Moreover, the GM is not given the power to decide the life or death of a character outside of the course of the game. He should not give the player who walks away a chronicle sheet, but it's reasonable to assume that at that point the player does not expect one. If the GM felt the player was a problem, his recourse is to talk with the Venture Captain.
|
|
First, let me say that you ALWAYS have the option of walking away and sometimes it is a VERY GOOD option. But ...
Once you begin to play a PFS adventure the first time (or any time for a tier 1 scenario or tier 1-2 module) you get a Chronicle sheet for it.
The beginning is a little amorphous but generally includes filling out the tracking sheet with your PFS number and one of the following:
- The GM beginning to read or paraphrase the box text
or
- The GM setting up the first combat and asking for initiative.
The Chronicle sheet may have 0 XP, 0 gold, 0 PP and no boons and items, but if you start an adventure with one of your characters (or a pregen) and it is not a replay for no credit, you get a Chronicle sheet.
This is to remind you that you have used your "once as a player" chance to play the adventure for credit. You've already been exposed to part of the adventure and it wouldn't be fair to every other player who starts the adventure fresh. If you could just get up and leave after the first combat or after the mission is given out, you could play the adventure later, picking the best PC for the job - even designing a PC to deal with the adventure.
If a player can't wait 10 minutes for the GM to fill out their Chronicle sheet or can't leave to take a break and come back a little later to pick up their sheet before the game ends and the GM has no way of contacting that player later, then basically the player has forfeited their PC.
The GM, by marking that the PC has died can flag that the player did not follow the rules by applying the Chronicle sheet to their PC.
Sure, if a player has to walk away, it is probably pretty bad and the GM may be the problem. If this is the case, the player should speak with the event organizer or a venture officer or as a last resort send an email to Mike Brock. Hopefully everything can be resolved and based on the player's words they might even be given the chance to play the adventure again, but without campaign leadership intervention, you only get one chance (your first) to earn a Chronicle sheet as a player.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are correct in saying that both sides have boundaries that they must play in (as outlined by the Society rules in their many forms and sources)...
...the GM is free to step outside the bounds themselves and apply whatever "circumstantial" bonuses/penalties they see fit (even though they are not in the module)...
One of the sources outlined in the Society rules that the GM is allowed to use is the Corerules book. In said book, there are rules for circumstance bonuses that can affect rolls made by a player (or GM). It is up to the GM to adjudicate such items fairly, but players happen, and no 2 runnings of a scenario is ever going to be exactly the same because of it.
When a player plays a role, their actions should cause reactions. The job of the GM is to run the game, and adjust the responses of the NPC to the stimuli that are the players accordingly.
For example, if a player walks up to the ferry man, who normally takes a DC20 Diplomacy to get passage, and sticks a sword through his gut, then the group now probably needs to be able to make a Profession(sailor) check to get across the river/bay they were taking the ferry for. The boat isn't going to move just because they can make a diplomacy check, and the dead ferry man isn't going to be roused to action by one either. There are other ramifications for such a random killing, but trying to keep it simple.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That seems to come up now and then here on the boards. And every time, the dialogue seems to go something like this:
Players: The GM did X to teach a lesson/punish someone/enforce his playstyle/etc!
GMs: Players do crazy things, and it's the GM's job to adjudicate the results!
Players: But the GM wasn't adjudicating results, he was making things up to make a point!
GMs: Oh, so you think a GM shouldn't be able to react to the PCs' actions at all? You think should be okay? The GM has to adjudicate the results of PCs' actions!
Players: But the GM wasn't adjudicating results, he was making things up to make a point!
GMs: Oh, so you think a GM shouldn't be able to react to the PCs' actions at all? You think should be okay? The GM has to adjudicate the results of PCs' actions!
Players: But the GM wasn't adjudicating results, he was making things up to make a point!
GMs: Oh, so you think a GM shouldn't be able to react to the PCs' actions at all? You think should be okay? The GM has to adjudicate the results of PCs' actions!
Players: But the GM wasn't adjudicating results, he was making things up to make a point!
GMs: Oh, so you think a GM shouldn't be able to react to the PCs' actions at all? You think should be okay? The GM has to adjudicate the results of PCs' actions!
------------------------
And the thread goes on and on and on. It seems like there's a certain segment of our GM population who respond to any implication that some other GM somewhere did something wrong as though the entire population of GMs' integrity was in question, and then react with "the players are even worse, and we have to cope the best we can". (Meanwhile others - such as Kyle Baird, PFCBG, etc - don't seem nearly as threatened by the mention of GM fallibility and typically stay out of it.)
We've had a thread where a player said their GM made it either difficult or impossible for their medium-sized mount to climb stairs, and the multi-star reaction was to compare it to a horse climbing a rope and chastise the player for expecting to get away with such absurdities.
We've had a thread where players mentioned GMs who forcibly drag low-CHA PCs into social situations and/or add extra penalties beyond the actual CHA mod, and the multi-star response was that the players were trying to give rousing speeches without having to make the accompanying check.
And now we've got a thread where (at least in this most recent segment) we have players talking about a GM making things up to "teach a lesson", and the response from at least some multi-star GMs is that the player(s) clearly expect to be able to go totally off the rails without repercussions.
---------------------
I guess there's a formula: if a player reports (or even mentions the possibility of) a GM abusing power X, certain folks on the boards will focus their responses on why power X exists and what players do to make it necessary, rather than informing players of what to do if they feel power X has been abused.
|
|
Jiggy, I can speak only for myself, but I've been responding solely to the GM who has been asserting that no amount of in-character jerkishness or social inappropriateness should change the attitude of the NPCs in the adventure.
I believe that Sniggvert was exaggerating for effect, but Relmer's position seems, on his several posts, to be one that has the undeviating script interpreted as closely as possible without regard for what the PCs do, no matter how much or little sense it makes.
Yeah, GMs who are making punitive rulings are bad. GMs who don't account for what the PCs are doing are also bad. There's middle ground that I believe most of us try to occupy, and I am wary of someone deciding to base their run style on Relmer's "the script is king" approach.
The adventures we are provided are a set of guidelines we should follow as closely as the table we're running lets us. If things go off the rails.... how you find the tracks again is where you must Embrace Table Variation.
It's not a bad thing if the players come up with a new route through the adventure. It's not a bad thing if the route they come up with winds up failing. Just be fair and fun and avoid "you can't do that", and try to pull together the threads into the same story from another angle, or let the party retreat if they can't continue.
Seriously, this.
I wasn't talking about abuse of power, teaching lessons, or heavy handedness of GM's. It's about the necessity of a GM to be able to roll with the flow of what players do while they're playing their roles. There's no script for the players. They come up with the durndest things sometimes. The GM is given the scenario and generally a guideline on what the NPC's initial attitude towards the party is, and if they're lucky a snippet about their general background/motivation. It's up to the GM to play that part with what little tools he has been provided and to roleplay and adjudicate the scene as best they can.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@TetsujinOni:
I'm not going to go into who exactly is saying what, because I don't want to name names, and besides that, there have been good comments in this thread alongside the bad ones.
I do want to respond to this:
Yeah, GMs who are making punitive rulings are bad.
I disagree. I think GMs who are making punitive rulings are doing a bad thing. There's a difference. Every GM - including the really great ones - does at least one bad thing every now and then (or even consistently!) in spite of being a good/great GM. Doing one or two things wrong doesn't make someone a bad GM any more than getting a mere one or two things right makes someone a good GM.
The belief that "doing X wrong = bad GM" is where the defensiveness starts. (It's then escalated by some GMs' apparent belief that critiquing one GM is equivalent to critiquing the entire GMing community, but I digress.) And the defensiveness leads to either talking past each other or making counter-accusations (or both). And that leads to thread after thread with a hundred or more posts of pointless arguments as GMs try to defend themselves from non-existent attacks. Round and round we go, no one willing to consider the possibility that the "opposition" doesn't actually hold the position they find so threatening.
It's been happening as long as I've read the PFS boards, and it's still happening, and it's never going to STOP happening until certain parties are willing to put down their swords and stop assuming that every player complaint is a threat against every level of GM authority.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'd just as soon not bother calling anyone a bad GM. Any GM, no matter how many practices they're getting wrong, is potentially a great GM in the making. And those "bad practices" will always be a smaller obstacle to being a great GM than a mindset of needing to defend oneself.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
... Every GM - including the really great ones - does at least one bad thing every now and then (or even consistently!) in spite of being a good/great GM... The belief that "doing X wrong = bad GM" is where the defensiveness starts. (It's then escalated by some GMs' apparent belief that critiquing one GM is equivalent to critiquing the entire GMing community, but I digress.)
This.
This.This.
Thank you, Jiggy, for pointing out this disconnect.
We cannot improve as GMs, as players, as a community, until we are comfortable recognizing and examining those times when we fall down.
|
|
I'm kinda on the outside looking in since the vast majority of my history is playing APs and homebrews but, don't these things have a way of self correcting themselves over time? What I mean is, if a GM is using 'punative measures' inappropriately, I would think players would get cranky. I know that in my capaigns, I've had some players threaten to leave on the spot when they felt I ruled something unfairly (I took them to the side afterwards and showed them the rules I used). Long story short...its been my experience in the past that GM's who are overly punative or whatever you want to call it don't tend to keep groups for long. As a result, they do not GM for very long.
I can see this being an issue, however, at conventions where, I would think, it's quite common to be hooked up with a GM for just a single sesion who you never played with before. The way I understand PFS, there's an issue with just 'walking away' from a table. So, a player may feel forced to sit there and deal with it until the thing is over (this happened in one my sessions that I GM'd).
I'm not sure there's a really great answer since, if anything, we're short on GM's all across the board. As a coordinator, I see part of my role to do exactly what Jiggy suggests...I will work to groom and train those GM's that are rough around the edges in the hopes they are diamonds in the rough. In fact, my primary focus on Utah right now is finding people who have any interest at all in GM'ing, and teaching what they need to know.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What I mean is, if a GM is using 'punative measures' inappropriately, I would think players would get cranky. I know that in my capaigns, I've had some players threaten to leave on the spot when they felt I ruled something unfairly (I took them to the side afterwards and showed them the rules I used). Long story short...its been my experience in the past that GM's who are overly punative or whatever you want to call it don't tend to keep groups for long. As a result, they do not GM for very long.
Yeah, it's a bit different in PFS.
Say you've got a regularly scheduled game day that usually seats about 4 tables. One of those GMs does something wrong that a player (possibly a completely new player) doesn't like. In all likelihood (especially if it's a new player), they simply don't come back; they tried this Pathfinder thing, it wasn't fun, so they go do something else.
In a home game, driving away players means you don't have a game. Even the densest GM will get that message. But at a PFS game day, driving away the same number of players just means you seat 3 tables that week instead of 4 (or just have less-crowded tables). The GM who drove those players away never feels the impact in any way that would make him suspect anything's amiss.
So unless a GM is just starting and runs only a single table, driving players away is not a self-correcting problem. (Well, unless he drives so many away that the only people left are the other GMs, who eventually play under this guy and say "Gee, I think I know what happened to our playerbase..." but then it's too late.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always believed that the players at each table should have an opportunity to rate the DM and that the DM, event coordinator and Paizo should get copiresof the ratings.
I kinda like the idea except for one problem.
I've only played at PFS tables 3 times and watched 2 more times. I've seen at least 3 players in that small time period blame the 'sucky GM' for everything that went bad. { As far as I can tell they still game back to play with that GM again. } But in all 3 cases I thought it was pretty obviously really lousey tactics and RP of the player that fouled things up.
So 2 of those GM's would have gotten a really horrible review even though they didn't do anything wrong. Human nature being what it is, often the only people that will bother to fill out a review is the ones that are upset. So it can really skew the results and make things seem much worse than they really are.
Venture-Agent, Colorado—Colorado Springs
|
I've always believed that the players at each table should have an opportunity to rate the DM and that the DM, event coordinator and Paizo should get copiresof the ratings.
My first though was "oh, yes, I want this!" then I thought how biased every rating would be. Might as well have a player rating system so we can get as many "player sucks because he wouldn't stay on the rails of the scenario" as "GM sucks because he wouldn't let me kill Ambrus Valsin" type responses.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I would think if the event has multiple tables running, a player would simply ask the event coordinator or one of the GMs at another table for a ruling/2nd opinion either when the "bad thing" happens or after the scenario, rather than just not coming back.
And yet that never seems to be what happens.
Re: GM Feedback:
This actually came up a couple of months ago, and Mike Brock asked for thoughts from the community. And just as has begun in this thread, people there had the idea that they were the only ones who could tell if a piece of feedback was bogus and therefore whoever recieved/processed the feedback would think said feedback was legit and punish the GMs for it.
I still don't get it.
|
|
Say you've got a regularly scheduled game day that usually seats about 4 tables. One of those GMs does something wrong that a player (possibly a completely new player) doesn't like. In all likelihood (especially if it's a new player), they simply don't come back; they tried this Pathfinder thing, it wasn't fun, so they go do something else.
But, doesn't that happen outside of PFS as well? When I was running AP store games as well as an online game, and I saw people leave because of the above (now, whether or not that was an issue with my GM style or PF not being a game for them would be a matter to debate! :)
As far as a rating system...I dunno. I kinda get the feeling that it would get kinda ugly. I just think we let these things work themselves out. If your GM is stinky and won't work with ya, you stop playing with him. If he's a jerk at a table, I promise you a majority of player's are not coming back (and, yeah, some of them might leave PF altogether, but I don't see a great way to stop that). That generally works outside cons.
In cons, there's usually a VO around that if something is really amiss with a GM who is running multiple slots, people will complain enough to him/her so he/she can address it, I would think. If enough people complain, I'm going to guess he/she would hopefully speak to and advise the GM of the concerns and if he/she isn't receptive, they don't get a re-invite :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Say you've got a regularly scheduled game day that usually seats about 4 tables. One of those GMs does something wrong that a player (possibly a completely new player) doesn't like. In all likelihood (especially if it's a new player), they simply don't come back; they tried this Pathfinder thing, it wasn't fun, so they go do something else.But, doesn't that happen outside of PFS as well?
Yes, but outside of PFS the result is an empty table and a GM having to come to grips with why he has no game. In PFS, the GM is fed more players to replace the ones that leave so he can go on and on without getting better (or not even knowing he's doing anything wrong!) and accumulate GM stars in the process, ironically enough.
In cons, there's usually a VO around that if something is really amiss with a GM who is running multiple slots, people will complain enough to him/her so he/she can address it, I would think.
My impression (though I could be wrong) is that this generally doesn't happen. I wonder if any VO's would be willing to share approximately how often a player voices a complaint about one of that VO's GMs?
...if he/she isn't receptive, they don't get a re-invite :)
When the topic of GM feedback came up before, one of the oft-repeated issues was "We can't afford to turn away GMs".
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another thought...putting my GM cap on...I don't care for the idea of being constantly rated. Don't get me wrong, I always ask my players what they thought about the session, my style, etc. However, I don't care for the idea of everything being tracked and recorded Amazon.com style or something.
I'm already formally reviewed at my paying job. It would be a huge disincentive to be handled that way at a volunteer deal where I'm supposed to be relaxing and having fun (that I regularly sink both a lot of time and money into). We all know that even the best GM's butt heads with players. You can't please everyone. Do I really want to receive offical feedback from them that's channeled through Paizo? Really, I don't.
And as a VO, I don't want to be forced by Paizo to kick someone out of PFS because he didn't meet the benchmark of feedback/ratings (Because we're worried he/she is driving off players).
If someone has a concern with a GM in my area, they're welcome to contact me, of course. And if we're just talking about a webpage that facilitates that process, I imagine that wouldn't be a bad idea...but more than that (processes, procedures, etc), not really up for that.
And, if I get 8 complaints about the same GM, I'll definately reach out and try to talk with him about it (and do whatever I can to make the players whole if something really bad at the table happened). But, while I have no concrete data, I'm sure that scenario is the rare exception and not the rule. GMs want players to have fun...and those who don't are usually very lonely people.
|
|
Yes, but outside of PFS the result is an empty table and a GM having to come to grips with why he has no game. In PFS, the GM is fed more players to replace the ones that leave so he can go on and on without getting better (or not even knowing he's doing anything wrong!) and accumulate GM stars in the process, ironically enough.
But, isn't that 'feeding' happening through either a store organizer, or VO? Wouldn't he/she notice that a particular GM has a turnover higher than normal? It might just be a difference of location thing as well. SLC is what I call a "Small town" Despite our decent population, we just don't have streams of players to replace ones that are leaving for bad experiences, and word of mouth (via our forums) spreads quickly.
When the topic of GM feedback came up before, one of the oft-repeated issues was "We can't afford to turn away GMs".
And that IS a huge issue. I've already run into both sides of this problem here. On one hand, I'm working hard to find GMs. I've getting 10 player emails and no one wants to GM. On the other hand, I'm getting two emails about a potential GM issue in one of my cities. I've already talked with this guy. He rough around the edges, but he'll GM whenever and wherever I need him to. That's bloody hard to find. I'm not sure that setting up something that could potentially discourage him would really help PFS grow in my area at all. Now, don't get me wrong. I will address those issues...but it will be with the utmost care and respect because I don't see anyone lining up to do what this guy is doing for PFS.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Another thought...putting my GM cap on...I don't care for the idea of being constantly rated. Don't get me wrong, I always ask my players what they thought about the session, my style, etc. However, I don't care for the idea of everything being tracked and recorded Amazon.com style or something.
I'm already formally reviewed at my paying job. It would be a huge disincentive to be handled that way at a volunteer deal where I'm supposed to be relaxing and having fun (that I regularly sink both a lot of time and money into). We all know that even the best GM's butt heads with players. You can't please everyone. Do I really want to receive offical feedback from them that's channeled through Paizo? Really, I don't.
I wrote an adventure (non-PFS). It's now sitting out there for the world to see - and review. As you can see if you click the link, reception has been less than stellar (it was my first try, after all). Right now it has a single review, with little positive to say about it.
So you know what I did? I PM'd the reviewer and asked for more criticism. (And he's been kind enough to oblige!) I know I couldn't have written a perfect adventure the first time around. I know I need to get better, so I ask for help.
Why anyone thinks GMing (in an organized play environment, mind) should be any different is beyond me. Feedback shouldn't be that scary.
And as a VO, I don't want to be forced by Paizo to kick someone out of PFS because he didn't meet the benchmark of feedback/ratings (Because we're worried he/she is driving off players).
To be clear, every time this comes up, the only mention there's been of booting a GM has been in the imaginations of those opposed to GM feedback. No one's suggested kicking out sub-par GMs, yet that seems to be what everyone reacts against. We're talking about feedback, not termination.
|
|
another thing that happens is when the judge is assigned to a table, all the experienced players (who have played for this judge before) know what to expect... so they "discover" a reason not to play that game. A shuffle occures and they shift to other games/tables (or home) and the problem judge is left with... only players who don't know better, or don't have a problem with the way this judge works.
.
I've seen this happen on Warhorn. In signing up for a local convention - players jump onto the table sign up. you get 3 or 4 signed up and then a Judge signs up. Sometimes (yeah, I'm guilty), those players switch to a different table. Surely it was NOT because of the judge that was going to run ... right? (a bit of sarcasm there).
Heh..definately a situation there. But, I don't see a problem with it. If some players have a GM preference, more power to them. We want to allow GMs and Players flexability as long as it does not break rules, and GM preferences does not.
If one GM seems to not get enough players signing up for his tables (while the rest are filling up) because of his reputation (not because to the scenarios), well, that's definately something the VO will need to look into and address. How often does that happen, though?
|
|
And as a VO, I don't want to be forced by Paizo to kick someone out of PFS because he didn't meet the benchmark of feedback/ratings (Because we're worried he/she is driving off players).
To be clear, every time this comes up, the only mention there's been of booting a GM has been in the imaginations of those opposed to GM feedback. No one's suggested kicking out sub-par GMs, yet that seems to be what everyone reacts against. We're talking about feedback, not termination.
But isn't that what's already in place? Players can give feedback to GM's. And for those who don't want to talk directly to the GM, they can pull up their VO and shoot him off an email, yah? At that point, the VO decides what needs to be passed onto the GM and/or how it needs to be addressed. What more do we want to add onto this if not an official system that somehow formalizes this process more than it already is? (Which, IMHO as a GM, comes closer to making it feel like a job where I'm being reviewed)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But isn't that what's already in place? Players can give feedback to GM's. And for those who don't want to talk directly to the GM, they can pull up their VO and shoot him off an email, yah? At that point, the VO decides what needs to be passed onto the GM and/or how it needs to be addressed. What more do we want to add onto this if not an official system that somehow formalizes this process more than it already is? (Which, IMHO as a GM, comes closer to making it feel like a job where I'm being reviewed)
What's currently in place is that you can talk to a VO. Of course, you need to know who that is, or where to look it up... assuming you know such a position even exists in the first place. What keeps happening instead is that a player either (a) comes onto the messageboards and asks about something that happened, then one or two people politely point them to the correct method of voicing complaints while far more people berate them for being such a jerk as to bring the complaint out in public onto the messageboards; or (b) they say nothing.
The primary things that were suggested for better feedback were a web form or a card that you could drop into a box. I personally favor the card, as being handed one (or seeing a stack of them next to a box) increases awareness that there is an ear for any complaints you may have. And if they have a card but forget to give feedback, it could have the website on the back or tell you how to find and contact your VO, so when they see it later they could still do something.
|
|
assuming you know such a position even exists in the first place. What keeps happening instead is that a player either (a) comes onto the messageboards and asks about something that happened, then one or two people politely point them to the correct method of voicing complaints while far more people berate them for being such a jerk as to bring the complaint out in public onto the messageboards; or (b) they say nothing.
But, there's a rub. I don't know if we can actively encourage feedback about GM's without discouraging them in the process.
Note: This next paragraph is with the GM cap, that I've worn for many moons!
I've had sessions with players that just didn't work out. We had conversations, and they left. If they go and complain on the boards, then, I can be mad at the player or the community. But, if a VO or Paizo get involved directly, I have someone else to be mad at. And, I'll tell you from personal experience, that's a huge disincentive for me to ever volunteer to do anything for PFS experience again. At that point, I want to take my legos and go play in a different sandbox. (leave PFS). I know that sounds childish, but it's the bloody truth. And I'm sure a number of GM's feel the same. Most GMs are OK with feedback. We even encourage it. But the minute a "Big brother is looking over your shoulder" system is implemented and/or used on us, and I have to wonder when my favoite game became a work like activity where I'm having to explain myself to a "higher up."
Now the VC/PFS fanclub cap
And right now, the GM/Player ratio is not favorable towards something that encourages more players at the possible cost of more GMs. And keep in mind, these guys don't just volunteer, they are often paying money to keep their groups going. Paizo needs to be very careful about anything that would push them away.
This isn't a blank check, of course. But, like I said, while not perfect, the systems of direct feedback to GM, speaking by action (leaving table) and/or communicating to VO's (and getting involved only in extreme cases) might be the best course of action for now. If we get to the point that the GM:Player ratio turns around and we can be more choosy and/or push current GM's harder w/o fear that we're going to be further in the hole, then I say let's revisit.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But, like I said, while not perfect, the systems of direct feedback to GM, speaking by action (leaving table) and/or communicating to VO's (and getting involved only in extreme cases) might be the best course of action for now.
Perhaps. Or at least, talking to a VO.
• If you already think a GM is being unfair, are you really going to go talk to them directly afterwards? Most people don't.
• Some GMs say that if you walk away from the table, they'll report your PC as dead. Or if what you meant was simply not coming back next time, there's still the issue that at most FLGS game days the seating is so different from week to week that if someone simply stops coming, it will not be giving any kind of message to anyone. Only in very small, close-knit playerbases would absence send any kind of message at all.
So that leaves talking to a VO. Since the main issue with this is that lots of people don't seem to know they can do so (or don't know how), then perhaps it's time to brainstorm ways to increase awareness of this option, yes?
|
|
In my experiences they do, LOL..but that might just be me because I look and ask for it so much. However, I understand your point...and in companies, it's important we are proactive about getting feedback from our clients about our staff.
Time for my business cap
But GM's aren't the staff...you see, in Paizo's eyes, they are *also* clients/customers. In fact, they're usually the bigger customers. It's just, because of the nature of our business, GM's play a role where they use Paizo products provide a service to other customers. And generally, what happens between customers stays between customers, and the business doesn't get involved unless what's happening in their store is bloody detrimental to the business.
I know that "organized play" lends itself to that idea than a typical 'hands-off business,' and, in rare cases, it might even be necessary to step in...but it should always be a last resort because someone is going to lose and they are not going to be happy customer afterwards.
So, that's why, at the risk of sounding negative, I'm not a fan of 'increasing awareness.' IMHO, a VC should only be involved in extreme cases, such as an illegal character death (and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most who invest enough time for a death to really hurt is going to know where the email addys are in the PFS guide). To do more is to invite one part of the customer base to critique the other side...and I'm not sure how that's a great benefit to the business.
And as VC, while I may be called on to do that kind of step in from time to time on such issues, it's not my main responsbility. In fact, it's not even mentioned in the PFS guide. What is listed is that I'm supposed to be working hard with other organizers to promote and grow PFS in my area, organize cons, etc. Getting involved with players who had a bad experience with a GM is a far and away a third place deal. Simply put, there's little I can do about it. I can't replace him with someone better. If I talk to him about it, he'll know where its coming from and he might decide all of this is too much work (Again, big brother syndome), resulting in a lost customer and organizer.
The only thing I can do is if a character was illegally reported as dead or something like that...work with Mike to see if it can be addressed. Outside of that, my options are very limited because the GM not my employee, and this is all volunteer driven. Even worse, he's not a volunteer working for me or Paizo, par se. Understand, I want the player to be happy...but, again, there's only so much I can do. I really want players and GMs to work things out, or find another group...asking me to get involved for whatever reason should be a last resort.
And those are the GM, VC and business reasons why I wouldn't vote to take extra steps to make 'reporting GM's' any easier. If Mike feels that taking a stronger approach is a good business decision, I'll jump on board, of course, and do whatever (including putting the cards out). But, right now, my gut says it's not a great idea at this time, especially given the landscepe of GM:Player ratio.
|
|
Actually, I cannot. There's never a good answer to a wrong question. If someone asks me if I think it's right to carry a gun or if it is OK to lie, but they need that answered as a Yes/No only, I would not answer. Such things require deeper discussion and explanation than a yes/no answer can provide. I'm sorry if my posts above somehow leaves you confused, but its the best I can do. (given time I could have edited down to less words, but it would never be boiled down to a yes/no answer)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm just asking because I see this issue:
• There exists a way for players to give feedback, but it's largely unknown/underutilized.
• People are largely opposed to new avenues for feedback.
Therefore, wouldn't a solution be to simply correct the underutilization of the existing process? (The process that you yourself said was a good one?)
That's what I was asking a couple of posts back, and your reply seemed to simultaneously agree and disagree. Or rather, it seemed like you were disagreeing with something you thought I said, but in describing it showing agreement with what I actually said.
|
|
Sure, there exist ways to leave feedback, but I believe there's a reason its left in the background (and therefore unknown to those who don't search for it.) It is clear Paizo could take some very simple steps to better promote the existing avenues available, but they have not.
You see, some are opposed for very good reasons, as I've delved into above. No doubt Paizo has considered some or all of the reasons I listed above, and others I have not.
We don't want to close off those methods of feedback altogether, because a way to resolve more serious issues needs to exist. However, taking promotional / informational steps to make those avenues more known & utlitized sends a message in and of itself that may be undersireable.
My point is that further promotion of what is currently a somewhat unknown feedback system can (and IMHO will) have unintended consequences. I could give you actual examples from business and government...but that would drive my post into my longest yet. I agree that it's a decent system as is, and I agree it is probably too unknown, but, while that's a problem, I don't believe the solution is worth the cost.
Did I mention I've never known a business to actively pursue feedback from its customers about its other, more loyal/better paying customers who help promote the products? It's just not a good business strategy... even if there's a chance it might make the other customers happy.
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Did I mention I've never known a business to actively pursue feedback from its customers about its other, more loyal/better paying customers who help promote the products? It's just not a good business strategy... even if there's a chance it might make the other customers happy.
But this attitude is begging the whole question.
You automatically classify GMs as "more loyal/better paying customers who help promote the products". Those aren't the people who are the problem. It's the "better playing customers who are poisoning the customer base" that drive away the players.
I've encountered bad GMs over the years, and I've heard enough others described on these forums to believe that they still exist, even in PFS.
|
|
Indeed...I agree John that they most certainly exist. But promoting the feedback system in an effort to 'ferret out' these 'bad apples' may turn out in a case of 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater' deal.
There are customers who are rude in Wal-Mart...and make Wal-Mart a poor shopping experience. Yet, you'll never see Wal-Mart actively asking it's "Good" customers to report the rude people to the Manager. That process is there. But, of course, there's only so much they can do, depending on circumstances. Regardless, they won't promote the process because it's bad mojo....even if the rude customers cost them some nice customers.
We're organized play, so there's a little more structure, but Paizo is still a business and players AND gm's are both customers. It would be bad form for Paizo, as a company, to suggest to players that they should report in the 'bad GM's' ...or even something that sounds nicer like "Give us GM feedback."
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Now, I agree there is a problem (and I disagree that having better promotion of exisiting feedback is a good option), I can certainly come up with alternatives.
Pathfinder has always been a group based event centered around the community. It's clear to me that while this problem exist, and easy fix from Paizo really isn't in their best interest. Furthermore, encouraging GM feedback may discourage some from stepping up to this needed role.
What I suggest is that we (those posting on these boards) step up as store organziers, VO's (where needed), etc. Work with your venture captain to visit game stores, get to know the GMs and players. Let them know who you, and what you do. Most importantly, let them know that you want them to have a great time playing PFS, and that you're available to support them. Give them your email addy and the such.
If something goes awry, then try to handle it as a friend and fellow member of the PFS community. Sometimes an ear to listen or a neutral party is all that's needed to resolve the issue. If it cannot be resolved, then help that player find another group. If some sort of permanent damage was done (PC being killed illegally), involve your VO or Mike.
Stay impartial. Keep in mind there are usually two sides to every story, and sometimes disagreements and personality conflicts happen with no real 'bad guy.' Let's just work together to resolve what little we can, and help the player find a new PFS group if at all possible.
If a store organizer sees a pattern, try to talk it out with the GM. If that doesn't work he/she reports it to the VO. If the VO's agree that a pattern is there about a bad GM who doesn't want to play nice in the sandbox, the most they can do is maybe not accept the 'bad apple' as GM at a con that's being organized, and in extreme cases, report it to Mike. Really, that's about it. It's not a perfect system, but if we work together, we can make it as good as we can and help PFS grow.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Walmart is a bad analogy. If I'm shopping, and somebody accosts me in the aisle and tries to get me to sign their petition, I don't think that behaviour is sanctioned by Walmart.
A better model would be a youth organisation such as Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts. Almost everybody involved there is a volunteer. But the perception, from the viewpoint of the 'customer', is that the group leader is a representative of the organisation as a whole. If those leaders do things to upset their community base, the reputation of the organisation as a whole suffers. So you bet there are all sorts of ways that the national organisation gathers feedback on the way the leaders act.
|
|
Walmart is a bad analogy. If I'm shopping, and somebody accosts me in the aisle and tries to get me to sign their petition, I don't think that behaviour is sanctioned by Walmart.
I never implied it was. Wal-Mart doesn't sanction *any* rude behaviour...but do you see WalMart working hard to ask you, the customer, to report any rude or petetioning activities?
Your BS/GS analogy is bad because GMs are not volunteers for PFS (Some may say they are 'volunteers' for the players...and that may be true). They are gamers just like the players are... at least as Paizo is concerned.
As a VC (and a podcaster at RPGamer) I'm a volunteer. I have to agree to legalistic terms and conditions when joining up. I have specific privlages and responsbilities along those lines. I have someone 'over' me who I report to. I'm told about things I can and cannot say as a volunteer. People can report me to the head of those organizations and they can make decisions that I no longer represent their companies.
GMs are nothing of the sort. They do not sign up anywhere as volunteers. They don't sign any agreements. They aren't interviewed and brought on board the team...they just start GMing. A VC represents Paizo on some level, like a BS/GS agent selling cookies. (Even so, they're less than an employee or manager in that regard, but they're more than another customer...you're right about that.) But a GM is not. A player may not see it that way, but Paizo most certainly does. And so do the vast majority of GMs.
|
|
In cons, there's usually a VO around that if something is really amiss with a GM who is running multiple slots, people will complain enough to him/her so he/she can address it, I would think.
This doesn't happen for a variety of reasons. No sense in repeating what Jiggy said, except to add +1 to everything.
The real crux of the issue is whether the feedback is for the coordinator, or whether it's for the GM.
I'm not entirely sure what the coordinator would do with feedback, unless there is enough horrible feedback. This is in agreement with what Phillip said. But still, players need to be made aware of this feedback method, and most are not. Also it's not always accessible at conventions because the coordinators are very busy.
To be clear, in my experience it's almost impossible (as a GM) to get direct feedback from players. Positive or negative. Even when you ask.
You have to assume the players coming back are happy and you never know if the players that don't return are unhappy. For me, that's frustrating. Without feedback it's much harder to improve and you might not even be aware of your strengths and weaknesses.
If you're depending on players to give direct feedback to GMs so that they improve, I just don't see that system working.
Some GMs want feedback, others do not. I don't suppose it could be optional? I also wouldn't want a rating from 1-10, but a basic rating with a "positive, neutral, and negative" rating and comments might be useful.
|
|
Well...there's two seperate things here, Jason.
You talk about GMs like yourself (and me too!) wanting feedback regarding our GM style, execution, etc.... and that it can be hard to get. That's fine. And, you're right...that's a GM to GM thing.
But the feedback system that is currently in place really isn't for THAT kind of feedback. It's nice to know, but there is really zero I can do about it. I can't give the GM a boon for getting lots of great feedback (and I wouldn't want to lest ppl stuff the ballot box) and I'd be loathe to pass on concerns lest the GM get offended that a paizo "VC" got involved in something that he felt was personal (as some of the negative feedback doesn't come from personal conflict and that can be hard to seperate at times).
The system that is currently in place is more for mechanical issue support. What I *do* want to know about as VC is more along the lines of "OMG, this GM killed my character and I want out of his group! Can you help me cuz I feel like quitting PFS!" type of deal. In those cases, I can work with Mike to restore their character status if warrented, and use my contacts in the area to provide them the best of the local available groups.
In other words, we're here (VOs and Paizo...not that I speak for them...just my observation from what I read) to support the GMs and players directly as whole and challenges they have with the system (including when it breaks down because of a bad GM deal) but not really with each other, if that makes any sense.
The problem is, that if we push too hard to 'inform' the crowd it's for this, but not that, the message gets muddled. And GMs will get offended if we come across as "Hey, you had a bad session wtih your GM? Character killed wrongly? Call us!" After all, for every bad GM there's also a bad player who would abuse such a system if their character was killed even for legit reasons.
Therefore, if GMs like you and I want the normal type of feedback (What we did right and wrong at the table), we need to seek it directly from players ourselves rather than involve the powers that be. You're right. Some players won't follow up. That happens in this game. And it's OK. You know what? No matter how many times a manager comes by and asks our table, my wife won't ever tell them how bad their food is because she just doesn't like to. She simply takes her business elsewhere. There are some players who move to new GMs for the exact same reasons w/o saying a word.
The only happy middle ground I can see here would be a system, maybe apart from Paizo, where, as you mention, GMs can set themselves up to receive feedback from players (without even using their names if they don't want) that we could advertise to the PFS group as a whole. But, if a GM doesn't want to sign up, that's his choice. With that being said, the initial concerns have to do with "Bad GMs" and those that are out there probably aren't going to volunteer for such a system. For those of us seeking feedback, it would be a neat tool to have. It would certainly address my concern about 'having a boss' as a GM if I knew that no third party, VO, etc had access to my feedback as a GM...only me...so that the info would only be used for my self improvement as a GM and not some sort of evaluation from a third party in how I play a game with others.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
It would certainly address my concern about 'having a boss' as a GM if I knew that no third party, VO, etc had access to my feedback as a GM...only me...so that the info would only be used for my self improvement as a GM and not some sort of evaluation from a third party in how I play a game with others.
And that's where I'm totally opposed to your viewpoint.
You're evaluated as to how well you play a game with others each time you sit down at the table. If you have total control over the channel for passing that feedback on it's useless to address the issue of problem GMs; they'll just discard any negative feedback. Players will know this. What players want is a system that doesn't go through the GM, so that if they feel they have a problem that they can't work out with the GM (for any reason) there is someone they can take it to.
I think I'm a good enough GM that I could stand the scrutiny. But, guess what? Most of the problem GMs probably feel that way, too; while I'm sure there are one or two GMs out to cause the maximum amount of grief, most of the problems I know of have been caused by well-meaning GMs who either aren't aware of what they are doing wrong, or who believe that what they are doing is really making the game better.
|
|
If you have total control over the channel for passing that feedback on it's useless to address the issue of problem GMs; they'll just discard any negative feedback.
Agreed. But, again, I don't think it's VO's or Paizo's job to "Phase out" the bad GMs who wouldn't use the feedback. Again, they're customers just like everyone else.
What players want is a system that doesn't go through the GM, so that if they feel they have a problem that they can't work out with the GM (for any reason) there is someone they can take it to.
Sure... but there are plenty of GMs (including decent ones) who do not. I like to think I'm a decent GM, but *I* don't want a third party coming to me telling me their interpretation of what I did right or wrong based on some comments they read.
And, again, my two golden points... 1) We don't have enough GMs and 2)No company wants to set up a feedback systems for one type of customer to provide feedback for the other type of customers, especially one that regularly requires that they adjucate between the two parties. That's just not good business.
On a side note, if you ask players for feedback, many WILL give you feedback. While I have had some leave with little notice/reason (and some of those were over an arguement that I pretty much KNEW what the issue was), most give me regular feedback, including the majority of those who left.