|
I filled out a comment card about Kyle killing my character but he burned it and laughed. :(You know, different GMs have different strengths. Why not have GMs start offering advice/training/whatever on their own areas of expertise to other GMs?You mean like GM 101?
Stop walking through walls of fire..
|
At the end of the day, players need to remember that 1) GMs are volunteers giving up time they might be playing to run for players, and 2) GMs are human and make mistakes. (GMs would do well to remember the same thing about players.) Unless a particular GM is being a complete jerk, I'm not sure a reporting system is necessary.
You know, different GMs have different strengths. Why not have GMs start offering advice/training/whatever on their own areas of expertise to other GMs?You mean like GM 101?
FTR, I consider the GM 101 session at PaizoCon this year among the best PFS returns on two hours I've had in a long time. (Even with Kyle participating. :-P) It included some great tips on game flow, rules adjudications, and handling dicey situations. Some was review for me, which is fine; some was new to me, which is great. Plus, the breakout groups allowed the less gregarious to share their questions and experiences too.
</threadjack>
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
You know, different GMs have different strengths. Why not have GMs start offering advice/training/whatever on their own areas of expertise to other GMs?You mean like GM 101?Well, I did post that in response to someone saying he wished GM101 was more widespread. ;)
The intent of my was that, since not everyone has GM101 going on, maybe some folks can share their talents on the messageboards. That way we can keep the advice flowing to people who don't have anyone running GM101 in their area.
Everyone can organize and get a GM 101 style event going in their area, however. In fact, if you contact the Pratt's or John Compton, they may be willing to part with a copy of their Deck of Many Situations to be used at your own, locally run GM 101 session (some bribing may be required). I did such a thing a month ago and had about a dozen players and GMs show up and take part. We even offered prizes (some left over boons I had from GMing) for those that handled their situations most admirably.
|
There are problems that can arise when you create a reporting system like this.
Now please keep in mind that I am not saying anyone specifically would be disingenuous, malicious, or spiteful towards anyone else. Nor am I’m specifically impugning anyone’s integrity.
Yet those things happen.
One thing, through my experience with Organized play, including running many Living Greyhawk games (including at Winter Fantasy) and coordinating and developing Living Dragonstar, that I’ve noticed, is that anytime you have a reporting system that are tied to rewards, there becomes a certain level of expectation and entitlement.
I’ve had almost an entire table give me 5’s because they had a blast, but one guy gave me a 1, because I wouldn’t let him get away with bullcrap stuff that broke the rules. I lost out on a box of swag because of that guy.
Those things happen.
We have a hard enough time getting GM’s in general, that restricting a 90+ table event to only the best of the best (even the 4 stars in Part II were not infallible) is probably not a very efficient idea.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What if GM feedback wasn't tied to rewards? What if it was mostly just "here's some info you can apply as you see fit"? Or what if it was used by VO's to say "gee, lots of players are having Issue X with multiple GMs; let's organize a specialized GM101 on that topic"? Or what if GM feedback was tied to rewards, but only in a long-term sense? That is, instead of someone like Andy losing swag due to one disgruntled player, the repercussions of ratings were based on trends instead of individual tables?
|
|
Before LG, RPGA reporting sheets included voting forms for each player and the GM, which were then tallied by the GM and the totals submitted when the event was reported. Players and GMs both derived ranking from the voting sheets, and the highest-ranked player got a one-time use "+1 to any roll" certificate.
There were a number of problems with the system. People "gaming" it to trade off "winning" the table, GM rankings being based on total points over time (meaning even the worst-performing GM could achieve the highest ranking over time), and others.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it is pretty obvious that this would quickly become the complaints box nearly entirely. And it would very quickly discourage GMs from stepping up. It is hard enough to get GMs for events as it is!
If there is a legitimate problem big enough to need action, contact the organizers or Paizo with details.
But if GMs start having to worry about their 'report cards' after a long hard con dragging their equipment around, loosing their voice, stressing about the tables, struggling to even /hear a word/ because the con hall is so loud it drives you deaf, and then dealing with things like last minute changes, or picking up a slot for a GM that didn't show up...
Well, then players should expect it to be nearly impossible to get seats in the very few chairs remaining.
|
|
I really dislike the idea of "reporting" about GMs.
I'm not saying that because I GM, but because being a GM in Pathfinder Society is a volunteer job - yes you're getting rewards for running a game, but it's still you giving up your time pre-game and during-game to read over a scenario (which is then more difficult to play in yourself since you know what it is), prepare for it, draw maps, fill out paperwork, etc. I'm not trying to suggest that it's a difficult job per se, but it is "work" that GMs do, and get nothing more than what players get for participating in it.
That being said, if it turns out that I'm in the minority and people feel there *must* be some way to report things about GMs, I think the best method would be something qualitative, not quantitative - no ratings systems, no 3/5 or 7/10 scores, no numbers. The point of "reporting" a GM, good or bad, should be to give creative criticism and give GMs feedback so they can assess their style vs those of the players they interact with.
Minus the "scoring system", a setup like "rate my professor" for college instructors would be ideal - players "log in" with their PFS number and event code, post what scenario they played in and the GM's PFS number and detail their experience. The GMs get the feedback anonymously without an event code or ID from a player, so all they know is that someone they actually ran game for said X, and they can use that to learn from, or not, as they wish.
No matter what though, I do not think that "public rating/ranking/scoring" of GMs is a good idea, and runs the risk of causing people who volunteer their time to GM now to do so less and less, which hurts the organization as a whole.
|
|
I would hate to see a scoring method in place.
If you find the GM making a mistake tell him afterwards more than a couple intervene with a printed book that says x does y etc.
GM's make some mistakes, good GM's acknowledge them. I made a couple this GC one of which was a radius of a spell at a table with Rogues crew. Another had to do with the background in the scenario Sacred Rune. Did I learn hell yeah I did. Did I appreciate it yes I sure did.
Rogue you had great feedback through word of mouth at the con, where you killed a character in different scenario. The party still loved the scenario even with a death. As well as a pregame.
Now a couple time where I did not make a mistake, when the players questions me about spell effects tactics of unkown to the players. I also noticed other mistakes about rules players VC, VL's and GM's made during the con. There are allot of rules in this game. If you had fun everyone wins. Usually players find when their expectations aren't met they may fell that it was a bad GM, when they may not even understand what is going on behind the scene.
For the record no character deaths for me this Con, there were many chances. I did attack someone while they were down and roll a nat 1 while they were unconsious on a flaming rope bridge with 100 ft below them, and they were still taking dex based posion damage close to 4 dex. I also ruled that one effect shouldn't crit against a PC. Some of the players thanked me afterwards for not softballing them. As well as letting players use my shirt re roll at key moments.
Trust you GM's unless you feel like you were seriously cheated.
|
|
Shadow, believe me, I am not saying its not neccesary :P I'm simply saying its a process that really changes from situation to situation.
I take GM feedback very seriously, and I consider it a major part of the job as an event organizer. At local game days, it's often easy for the organizer to observe and step in to problems where neccesary. If there is a problem with a GM or with a player, it's often a simple matter of giving a rules clarification, chatting with an upset player for a minute, or shuffling tables to everyone's satisfaction. Our store liaisons know their players, and know which players shouldn't be put at the same tables, etc.if the issue cannot be resolved at the local level, that is when players/GMs should take their appeals to the Venture-Officers, etc.
In general, this tends to work fairly well at smaller cons as well. There tend to be a bit more conflicts, but in general, situations can be resolved on the spot. Of course, there are exceptions, but a good event organizer can cover 90% of any problems.
The problem comes with massive cons...like Gencon. When you require a hundred or so volunteers and a thousand players, unfortunately some problems are going to fall through the cracks. What I can say is that the Gencon staff welcomes this kind of feedback, and that we have a meeting about improving the con, and that we are dedicated to improving the con. Keep the feedback coming :)
I agree--as local liaisons, Linda and I together know pretty much everyone who plays at the local store, and we try to consider all the factors when scheduling and listen to everyone about their experiences, which is something you just can't do at Gencon
My Educational GM Experiences:
Humorously, I've done the exact same thing as your level 1 TPK.
Anyway, I immediately let them all bring in new copies of their PCs and they kicked the butt of the rest of the scenario with nothing even approaching danger. That was my first TPK in Pathfinder Society.
As to the "never TPK a level 1 party" rule in general, I agree in most situations and particularly for new players, but, and not to be a Kyle, occasionally it would just be cheating the party in a deus ex machina way to not TPK them. JeremyK's party was a good example--they had the ability for most of them to escape, but since they were all in it together as a premustered group, it seemed that the players of the good-aligned characters wanted, instead of a retreat and survival, a desperate last stand where either all of them would die or none would. Still, if it's new players, I will try to figure something out, including the "suddenly your identical twins appear to do the same mission" that we both used in Intro 2.
|
Perhaps the BBEG noticed the glowing rune stamped on the forehead and was like "Hmmm, Summoner, well if I kill the master I kill the pet."
I am just looking for a way for GMs to have strike policies or something. When our group was fighting the BBEG and the eidolon is bashing away and you turn to the Summoner and kill him because you know from previous fights that you can't hit the eidolon is pure meta-gaming. After 3 rounds I can understand but after the first round is cheese weasel.
The only problem is no knowledge (arcana) roll was made, which means he is meta-gaming, unless your ok with me saying "Hey it is a troll so fire only hurts him" and I am a fighter without making a knowledge Nature check. Then there is no purpose to use knowledge checks if I just memorize all the monsters.
I argued this with the GM, he had the finale call and I respect that, but I disagree and think it is poor call. I told it to the GM, and I thanked him for GMing, it is a thankless job. I am willing to be rated, if you can't get reviewed then you will keep on making the same mistakes and never become a better GM.
|
The comment card idea should not be a ranking system for GMs and maybe that is the source of resistance to this idea. Players should be able to comment on anything from the mustering, the room temperature to any issues with the scenarios themselves.
Some issues were with GMs but were in the more extreme category. To elaborate, one GM did not know his adventure at all or basic rules such as that casting spells or moving out of a threatened area caused AoOs. Another GM apparently was telling people not to bother with minis because he didnt believe in using maps. These were not minor issues to the players who were upset about them. Mostly these are hearsay so don't bother arguing the circumstances- fact is that players were upset enough to "spread the word", and that is not a good thing.
|
ooh ooh. this is my fault! woot!
rather than addressing it very publically on the forums, and telling my side of the tale, if mike brock would like me to email him about this incident, i'll happily do so.
i will say though that I was running the module cold because they were running out of GMs. This happened in the last slot of the convention. When I went up to cash in my tokens from the weekend after the game, there was nothing left except more of the GM boon from the con.
I don't think discouraging GMs is the answer, it will just mean fewer tables at large events like Gen Con.
|
|
edit: that said, I have come across rules differences at conventions way more than at a home game: gm's considering firing through an adjacent ally's square as firing from cover, rather than firing through soft cover. GMs that accumulate range penalties after the first range increment, rather than for every full range increment, inclusive. I had one snarky alchemist say that i have an unusual way of dealing with volatile grenades after I had it bounce off a wall to continue the three squares it was supposed to bounce.
I like it when i can see consistency across games at conventions. sit down and know a rule will work the way i expect it to. but that's why I bring up a lot of things i see on the forums, so they can be addressed and the disparities can be fixed within the core rules, or within society play.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I TPK'd a 1st-level party once, including a brand-new player. I have mixed feelings about it.
They stepped into the warehouse, started the fire, and decided to continue in and search as though the fire wasn't there. They all burned to death.
I crumbled under emotional insecurity over my first TPK, and hand-waved the whole thing, saying they were rescued so they could finish the scenario.
They immediately proceeded to the final fight and got shot to death while standing in the open trying to win the damage race instead of taking cover and coming up with a plan.
What do you do with that? Especially when the new player (who has not touched the game since) was given an 8 CON wizard by her husband, and dragged into really bad ideas in the most dangerous of situations, and you've already given the whole team a free pass once? Oy.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
The only problem is no knowledge (arcana) roll was made, which means he is meta-gaming, unless your ok with me saying "Hey it is a troll so fire only hurts him" and I am a fighter without making a knowledge Nature check. Then there is no purpose to use knowledge checks if I just memorize all the monsters.Perhaps the BBEG noticed the glowing rune stamped on the forehead and was like "Hmmm, Summoner, well if I kill the master I kill the pet."
I am just looking for a way for GMs to have strike policies or something. When our group was fighting the BBEG and the eidolon is bashing away and you turn to the Summoner and kill him because you know from previous fights that you can't hit the eidolon is pure meta-gaming. After 3 rounds I can understand but after the first round is cheese weasel.
There is no rule that requires you to make a knowledge (arcana) check to identify an eidolon. Perhaps you could require a knowledge (planes), but that would still be a GM call.
Here's an interesting question that might help us get to the real meat of the issue: we don't require players to make checks to realize that the dagger did 54 damage because the character has levels in rogue, or that he was able to attack you after tripping you because he has Greater Trip -- so why make an exception for a summoner? If the summoner class is allowed as PFS legal, then we can assume it is a common PC class in Golarion. Just as NPCs know that people with holy symbols are divine casters, or that people in heavy armor probably aren't casting arcane spells (save those with somatic components), they will know that beasts with glowing runes are summoned pets, and the best way to destroy them is through their master.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One of the best times to kill a party is at first level, during the first adventure.
Look: we want people to know this adventuring stuff is dangerous, that Pathfinders sometimes don't come back, that the Master of Blades keeps a rack of fallen agents' weapons down by the practice field, and there's room there for yours.
This lynchpin of PFS is undercut if every time the agents go out, they come back.
[non-gaming aside: In the 1910's and 1920's, escape artists were a novelty and drew enormous crowds. But they were victims of their own success. If, over the last 100 years, every single guy you've ever seen get trussed up in a straight-jacket on stage manages to shake it off, then maybe this new guy, in the straight jacket? Maybe he'll shake it off, too.]
So, which is easier to take: the character you just created, to whom you're not particularly attached, getting ganked by a dire rat down by the wharfs of Golarion, or the third-level character you've almost raised to fourth, who has developed a relationship with a Venture Captain and his faction leader, failing a saving throw and taking enough damage to rend soul from flesh?
[non-fantasy aside: this is the problem with starship combat rules in most space-based RPGs. When the Enterprise breaches the warp core of the Klingon Ack-p'tah, it explodes. If the tables were turned, the Enterprise ought to explode. Well, yeah, but in the TV show, the heroes never lose. In an RPG setting, if the crew loses a fight, any fight, the ship explodes and the campaign ends. So the ship can't ever lose a fight. Right? No matter how far into the red zone the PCs push the engines?
[A solution: in the first session, as soon as they try something stupid do not spare them from the dice. Then, if they die, bring in the replacement team.]
I recall the very first year that Pathfinder Society hit Gen Con, and how some folks were proud -- proud, I say -- that they'd played in all four adventures, and lost characters in every one of them. They had a terrific time.
|
|
I was actually the summoner in question.... and the judge no doubt metagamed. I have tons of experience in gaming (very active in LG, have attended multiple gen cons, and was a guru for the lg system). So I appreciate that it can sometimes be a thankless job to judge. This being said, Paizo judges get 5 paizo bucks per slot, they can likely apply at least one chronicle sheet to one of their characters, and they got a coin as if they were playing the slot which they can turn in for boon.... which is a whole lot more then we got running LG mods at Gen Con.
The frustrating thing about the mod in question was the judge was using knowledge that a competent spell caster could have pulled from from his knowledge check... the problem is we were fighting a medium goblinoid with weapon display and sneak attack... that knew less then nothing about spellcaster types. And its not like I was being a cheeseweasel... my character was the highest level at the table. My summoner had done NO damage to anything... he is a talker. As for the rune on the head that could mean something but maybe not arcane types typically have their sigil on things that are theirs. Would a fighter hit a pendent that my summoner was wearing because it contained his mark. Also my character has a headband of charisma and circlet of persuasion... so that likely conceals it somewhat I would think in a dark tunnel in the middle of battle it would be difficult to connect the two.
The really sad thing is the judge was prolly the second best one I had at Gen Con. He ran the mod in question cold and did a good job in general up til that point. The goblinoid was already being attacked by someone else and switched to attacking the summomer immediately without even swinging at my eilodon (which I can use a ride check to avoid) but like I said the larger goblinoid didn't even try to hit the eilodion. Then he also told the other goblins to attack me over my eilodon which they had to tumble through AoO's to get to me. The judges only defense was that he knew that taking out the summoner would kill the eilodon... which is CLEARLY player knowledge.
Just saying!
|
I think specifically soliciting gm scores or ratings would do more damage than good. A LOT of people are intimidated to run for strangers at cons and I think we would miss out on some great new gms if people were obsessing about their score.
On top of that, we all make mistakes. Bad calls at the table, grumpiness from roommates who snore, misread mission notes or bbeg tactics. Every gm has these moments. Because of human nature, a formal scoring system would amplify negative feedback. Gming is tough enough as it is.
People who truly felt cheated of a good experience will email Mike or a Venture Officer and make it known. People who are annoyed, but not overly so will post here. Feedback will happen when it needs to and all of us will continue to work towards ever better PFS experiences.
That said, more gm training and support is clearly an area of opportunity. The gm101 materials created by the Atl crew is really excellent. Perhaps we can find more ways to get the word out to the faithful. Offering value and positive experiences is the way to improve and recruit gms.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We don't become good GMs overnight, nor by attending a two-hour seminar. It takes work, and some mentoring. (For myself, I improved after video-taping a table I ran and seeing what I could do better.)
The trick is to get people to want to be better GMs. If somebody's pretty happy with himself, but he starts by just skipping the boring VC briefing stuff and getting to the first fight scene... the first challenge is getting him to want to improve.
How do we encourage table judges to do that? (And GMing 101 doesn't help, 'cause these aren't the people who show up for that.)
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
I apologize for what sounds like a poor table. However, I'd like to touch one point you made that irks me slightly.
The judges only defense was that he knew that taking out the summoner would kill the eilodon... which is CLEARLY player knowledge.
How is understanding of class mechanics player knowledge? When a GM says that the creature before you froths and the mouth and attacks, you assume it raged (incurring a -2 to AC and making it easier to hit). There's no check required.
I don't believe that looking at a small character with a glowing rune riding an otherworldly being who has the same rune branded to his forehead and assuming that you are either a spellcaster or a summoner controlling that creature is really that big of a stretch to make. Furthermore, it's not like summoners are rare. They are, as I stated earlier, just as common as any other class.
So if you have a rogue and attack the person in robes in the back, because you follow the strategy "target spellcasters first," is your PC metagaming? No -- you are following a strategy based off practice and observation in the world your character lives in. Any intelligent NPC can do the same.
---------------
As far as attacking someone who had yet to act, ordering his allies to get you as well, and not targeting the person that had dealt him damage -- that I cannot defend. Saying that "intelligent NPCs don't know I'm a summoner, even though they can see my eidolon and both of our forehead runes" isn't correct though. (I know you weren't saying that, exactly, but its an exaggerated extrapolation of an argument someone else could make).
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
The trick is to get people to want to be better GMs. How do we encourage table judges to do that?
There are things that can be done at a small event (FLGS, or a regional con) - when the reporting sheets are being collected at the end of the slot, debrief one or two of the GMs (selected at random). Take a few minutes to ask them how it went, what they think went well, and what they think didn't go as well. Most of the time just having them think about it will give them an insight into something they could do better; if not, a followup question might be enough.
If a GM doesn't want to answer your questions, and doesn't regard this as at least partially an opportunity for self-appraisal (rather than merely a chance to vent about the players at the table) that in itself could be a warning sign. But it's hard to make anybody want to do something.
|
|
How is understanding of class mechanics player knowledge? When a GM says that the creature before you froths and the mouth and attacks, you assume it raged (incurring a -2 to AC and making it easier to hit). There's no check required.
I don't believe that looking at a small character with a glowing rune riding an otherworldly being who has the same rune branded to his forehead and assuming that you are either a spellcaster or a summoner controlling that creature is really that big of a stretch to make. Furthermore, it's not like summoners are rare. They are, as I stated earlier, just as common as any other class.
So if you have a rogue and attack the person in robes in the back, because you follow the strategy "target spellcasters first," is your PC metagaming? No -- you are following a strategy based off practice and observation in the world your character lives in. Any intelligent NPC can do the same.
To be clear this is what the Pathfinders Advanced Players Guide says...
"The eidolon also bears a glowing rune that is identical to a rune that appears on the summoner’s forehead as long as the eidolon is summoned.
While this rune can be hidden through mundane means, it cannot be concealed through magic that changes appearance, such as alter self or polymorph (although invisibility does conceal it as long as the spell lasts).
So like I said I had stuff at least covering the rune on the summoner so all the sewer goblin with no knowledge ranks had was a glowing rune on the head of the eidolon. Just saying. If thats enough for you to do that its enough for you. I will tell you that the three experienced gamers at the table would disagree with judges call.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
So like I said I had stuff at least covering the rune on the summoner so all the sewer goblin with no knowledge ranks had was a glowing rune on the head of the eidolon. Just saying. If thats enough for you to do that its enough for you. I will tell you that the three experienced gamers at the table would disagree with judges call.
And like I said:
As far as attacking someone who had yet to act, ordering his allies to get you as well, and not targeting the person that had dealt him damage -- that I cannot defend.
Yes the rune can be covered. Was it? If so, then your GM was in the wrong and I agree with you. If not, then onto what I said earlier.
In my opinion, an intelligent creature does not need to make checks to know that two creatures with runes are eidolon and master, provided the runes are visible, as summoners are not rare. I imagine that in the streets of Absalom you pass a dozen or so extraplanar oddities on your way to the market, and even the beggars in the streets know they are eidolons.
There is no precedent for requiring any check to identify a class feature. Such checks only exist for spells. Adding one to identify something that is a core part of a common class makes no sense to me. Unless the creature would have no reason to know what a summoner is. If those goblins were kept in cages in the dark their entire lives, I retract my statements.
|
|
I did post that the summoner halfling had a headband and circlet on... and the one on the summoners rune does NOT glow. The eilodon DOES have the glowing rune...hmmm how to check out the halfling riding on the dragons back to see if under his headgear the rune is the same! Sorry man it was a stretch no matter how you spin it
|
Venture-Captain, Michigan—Mt. Pleasant
|
I'm honestly really surprised that you're having such a hard time believing that someone would attack the rider and not the mount. Probably 75-90% of the games I've run the players have always gone after the riders first. Very rarely do they attack the mounts before the riders. And you're riding a dragon, every commoner knows that dragons are invulnerable, right? ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really dislike the idea of "reporting" about GMs.
I'm not saying that because I GM, but because being a GM in Pathfinder Society is a volunteer job - yes you're getting rewards for running a game, but it's still you giving up your time pre-game and during-game to read over a scenario (which is then more difficult to play in yourself since you know what it is), prepare for it, draw maps, fill out paperwork, etc. I'm not trying to suggest that it's a difficult job per se, but it is "work" that GMs do, and get nothing more than what players get for participating in it.
That being said, if it turns out that I'm in the minority and people feel there *must* be some way to report things about GMs, I think the best method would be something qualitative, not quantitative - no ratings systems, no 3/5 or 7/10 scores, no numbers. The point of "reporting" a GM, good or bad, should be to give creative criticism and give GMs feedback so they can assess their style vs those of the players they interact with.
Minus the "scoring system", a setup like "rate my professor" for college instructors would be ideal - players "log in" with their PFS number and event code, post what scenario they played in and the GM's PFS number and detail their experience. The GMs get the feedback anonymously without an event code or ID from a player, so all they know is that someone they actually ran game for said X, and they can use that to learn from, or not, as they wish.
No matter what though, I do not think that "public rating/ranking/scoring" of GMs is a good idea, and runs the risk of causing people who volunteer their time to GM now to do so less and less, which hurts the organization as a whole.
I agree with this. Feedback should go to GMs so they can improve their game. Questions like: What was one thing your GM did best? What was one thing they could change or improve upon? GMs can choose to ignore it (which is fine, they just won't grow or improve) or they can act upon it.
If a GM really doesn't seem to know what he's doing, then instead of taking the time to write up a report about it, message them and let them know what you thought or give them some pointers to make their next game better. Sometimes it's just an error in communication.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Far more important to the health of PFS would be a player tracker. So when a GM sits down at a tablet he knows he has an overly argumentative player, a rules lawyer, a borderline bully, or any of a dozen other irritating things players might do.
GMs should be able to boycott players with poor scores, or we can cordon off all the bad players onto quarantine tables to prevent them from irritating the vast majority of players and GMs who bring nothing but awesome to the game.
As soon as the player tracker mechanic is working and we've quarantined the bad players, we can work to find bad GMs to pair up with them. Until we finish that final step, we'll just put Care Baird in charge of finding GMs to man the quarantine tables.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Walter Sheppard: I've actually had a player duo playing a gnome summoning wizard and a half-orc barbarian - at the begining of each scenario the wizard would Arcane Mark both their foreheads to have the same glowing rune as so to disguise themselves as a summoner and eidolon; the wizard would summon and buff the barbarian in combat to keep up this ruse
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
While I didn't do it this last weekend, I do actually ask players from time to time what they thought of my GMing and if they felt I was weak in any way. This week was too busy, and people were typically rushing off after a game so I didn't bother. This has worked in the past, and I have actually made changes to how I run games based on some of the feedback I have been given.
Overall though, people were complementing me after each game. I seem to remember one guy saying that it was the best game so far that weekend. I would hope that those comments were sincere and that they were not just saying that to make me feel good.
That said, I am not against feedback. If anyone at any of the tables I judged wants to give me feedback, I welcome it. I will never know what I am bad at unless I become aware of it.
Edit: In case you are wondering if you were at my tables, I only go by Caleb online. My real name is Taylor Hubler and I had a little stuffed goblin that my wife made for me.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Edit: Let me put it another way. If you were in charge and one of your GMs had complaints from players at 90% of the tables he/she ran, wouldn't you want to know?
Absolutely. And it is why I am already starting to think on the best way to institute a GM feedback system that can be useful and actually work without embarrassing players or GMs, and where I and 5 star GMs have the ability to reach out to GMs and serve as a mentor of sorts to help them improve their GMing.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magic: the Gathering has probably the single most successful organized play program ever. One of the reasons for that success is its approach to judging. As judges, we are always recruiting, always discussing the rules, always discussing the game, and regularly review each other. The DCI has a central system with a "judge board" of sorts where judges and organizers can log in, check on rules/cards, recruit help for their events, and leave reviews for each other. The reviews are never anonymous, so they are usually very useful, as no one wants to come off as someone who flames for the sake of flaming. Thus, they actually help people improve.
I suppose that's the long explanation for this: I wholeheartedly approve of any idea for a feedback system, Mike. Having seen it in action, and been a part of the results, it is worth the effort.
If you want any ideas on how that might work, let me know. If you get to Denver and stop into the store, I can give you a guided tour of the system. I wouldn't be surprised if some of your fellow Paizoans had access, actually. The system has been around for a decade, after all.
Venture-Lieutenant, South Dakota—Rapid City
|
While I didn't do it this last weekend, I do actually ask players from time to time what they thought of my GMing and if they felt I was weak in any way. This week was too busy, and people were typically rushing off after a game so I didn't bother. This has worked in the past, and I have actually made changes to how I run games based on some of the feedback I have been given.
Overall though, people were complementing me after each game. I seem to remember one guy saying that it was the best game so far that weekend. I would hope that those comments were sincere and that they were not just saying that to make me feel good.
That said, I am not against feedback. If anyone at any of the tables I judged wants to give me feedback, I welcome it. I will never know what I am bad at unless I become aware of it.
Edit: In case you are wondering if you were at my tables, I only go by Caleb online. My real name is Taylor Hubler and I had a little stuffed goblin that my wife made for me.
Overall, I got the same feeling you did Taylor; had most of my tables thank me for a good game, and even had 3 guys enjoy my God's Market Gamble that they asked for me for Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment later that day. It's a a great feeling to know people enjoyed a session and gives that intrinsic reward/feeling that makes GM'ing a unique experience.
Getting more of those warm fuzzies would be nice, but as often the case (given my previous retail experience), people usually take the time to mark complaints instead of compliments. I can't say it'd be a positive thing to have GM comments/surveys on a mass scale. I can see a playaid that'd be the equivalent of a GM business card that has either an email address or the Paizo account name so they can email/message you directly with feedback both good and bad. Otherwise, players have access email addresses/contact info for venture captains in the Guide to PFS.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Absolutely. And it is why I am already starting to think on the best way to institute a GM feedback system that can be useful and actually work without embarrassing players or GMs, and where I and 5 star GMs have the ability to reach out to GMs and serve as a mentor of sorts to help them improve their GMing.
Why stop there?
One of the things I'm looking forward to at Pacificon (albeit with no little amount of trepidation) is the fact that I've got GMs with far more experience than I have signed up to play at my tables. I'm sure they'll be able (and, no doubt, more than willing :-) to give me some candid criticism of my judging performance.
It's accepted that the five-star GMs have to demonstrate their abilities before a review panel - why would it be a bad thing to encourage something of the kind at all levels?
Edit: Fixed quoting levels.
|
|
GMs should be able to boycott players with poor scores, or we can cordon off all the bad players onto quarantine tables to prevent them from irritating the vast majority of players and GMs who bring nothing but awesome to the game.
That idea is all fine and dandy, but I don't want to be the one running that table! :)
|
|
So like I said I had stuff at least covering the rune on the summoner so all the sewer goblin with no knowledge ranks had was a glowing rune on the head of the eidolon. Just saying. If thats enough for you to do that its enough for you. I will tell you that the three experienced gamers at the table would disagree with judges call.
spoilers ahead if you haven't played rise of the goblin guild
covering the rune of the forehead came up after the game was over.
but lets describe the situation from the perspective of the well hidden bugbear: she's hiding. she sees a group come into her chamer and she's waiting for them to get close and trigger her trap.
one is stealthily approaching the trap and looking to disarm it. another is some small guy riding what looks very much like a dragon. another guy has an otherworldly beast. there's a small female in the back in robes, and another guy in robes.
the bugbear does a dazzling display, and strikes fear into the heart of the rogue. he runs off frightened. goblins shimmy down the poles and try to set up flanks for their master the bugbear who acts last in the round.
what i remember, the summoner on his eidolon rode into with the bugbear first. the other summoner's eidolon charged in and attacked, taking an AoO that missed anyway. from where the goblins came down to provide flank, getting a flank on the summoner riding his dragon was the easiest to achieve, as other goblins on the other side of the 2nd eidolon were being killed too quickly to provide flank. where the rest of the party was moving up to.
the bugbear delivered some nasty shots in round 1 to the summoner for 14+ damage in one hit at a tier 4-5 game, where the party is playing up and has some level 2 and 3 characters. the summoner stayed in place riding his eidolon, received no healing. round 2, she still had a flank on the summoner, the summoner cast haste on the returning rogue. the bugbear swung, maxed out damage on the roll (~21?), and that killed the summoner. I was surprised, if i had a caster in melee with that much damage in the first shot, i'd have dismounted and gotten out before the second shot came.
but the bugbear, given the options of swinging at: a lightly armored caster riding a dragon, trying to attack the dragon, or trying to attack the otherworldly creature, had a great shot of hitting the lightly armored summoner, knew the summoner was a caster (he cast haste defensively from dragon back ), and had flank on the dragon/summoner.
Once the summoner went down, and the dragon disappeared, she did redirect her iterative attack to the other eidolon, who if i remember said at that time that he had a 27 AC. So i felt vindicated in that I was trying to hit the most dangerous opponent with the lowest AC properly. As a GM i'm sorry I killed him, he's maybe the 3rd death i've had since season zero.
given the choice, you would hit the summoner too unless tactics said otherwise. if the headgear was covering your rune, maybe make more of an effort to make sure that's known going in. not everyone will assume that you're trying to conceal it. though she does have a good perception. regardless of whether the rune was covered: you were a caster on the back of a heavily armored beast, and another heavily armored beast was trying to attack her and not dealing as much damage.
if the 2nd eidolon was doing massive damage, i might have tried to move the enemy and get flank with that eidolon, but at the time, it hadn't done much. and then she was greased so she couldn't move around much to get a better flank.
what are you upset with me at? that i attacked you instead of the two heavily armored eidolons? Your dragon eidolon was doing a lot of damage, hezz's eidolon was missing from what i can recall. the rogue was out of combat for the first two rounds b/c of being frightened. the sorcerer was staying back, the ... oracle? i've no idea what phir was, stayed back and was dealing with a lone goblin. hezz was staying back out of reach. The only creatures toe to toe with the hobgoblin were a summoner on his eidolon, and hezz's eidolon.
i'm not much in the way of a tactician, i went with my gut. i think any time you have a mounted rider who's controlling a mount, you want to take out the rider first, its the intelligent one, its the one in control, just by virtue of being the rider. you had a wand of invisibility, you could have concealed your presence.
myself, my ranger fast dismounts from his mount at the start of most combats before sending him into battle. and he's not all that squishy. but i err on the safe side rather than getting a crit to the face or something.
characters die, it happens. i wasn't trying to meta game that you were a summoner in control. after it had happened, you seemed tense and upset and like you were holding back hostility towards me as a GM because a creature in a game killed your character.
I tried to rationalize after the fact what the enemy was seeing: a summoner with the rune on his head, riding a dragon up and attacking her. I do consider summoners part of common knowledge, and there's no statted check to know what class someone is or class abilities.
Summoners are common. You may have had your rune covered as you say, and as your friend said, but that was after the fact, and didn't come up beforehand. No one said "i'm wearing my headband in a way so that it covers up the glowing rune on my forehad". but your character was still riding on the eidolon into battle. you don't want your squishy to die in battle, don't send him into the heat of battle. I was expecting you to use some feat or something and defend yourself. slide down in your saddle to up your AC, withdraw and get some healing, I didn't realize mounted combat only protects your mount. Which seems silly with an eidolon, as its got SUPER AC. and most knights have the problem of their mounts having a much lower AC, so a spearman will kill the horse to get the knight on the ground. You've got the opposite problem, a very well armored mount, with a very lightly armored rider. it seems to me, smart money is on hitting the rider, summoner or not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am relatively new to PFS, but I have vast amounts of experience in multiple other organized play groups and running convention games, some with 100+ players.
So I can say with some certainly the following facts:
1. Good GMing is an aquired skill with certain requirements
2. Good GMing in an organized play environment is an aquired skill with often very different requirements
3. Good GMing at a large convention is an aquired skill with often (yet again) very different requirements
I think that is something that everyone should keep in mind. I good home GM does not a good PFS GM make (and vice versa), though of course there are core elements to all good GMing that does apply across the board.
A general GM 101 would likely be little more than review for me, but should I ever step into GMing PFS scenarios, then a GM 101 tailored specifically to the Society would be a godsend.
|
|
GMs should be able to boycott players with poor scores, or we can cordon off all the bad players onto quarantine tables to prevent them from irritating the vast majority of players and GMs who bring nothing but awesome to the game.That idea is all fine and dandy, but I don't want to be the one running that table! :)
have a 5 star GM do it, so you know they're getting fair treatment from an accredited GM.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
have a 5 star GM do it, so you know they're getting fair treatment from an accredited GM.GMs should be able to boycott players with poor scores, or we can cordon off all the bad players onto quarantine tables to prevent them from irritating the vast majority of players and GMs who bring nothing but awesome to the game.That idea is all fine and dandy, but I don't want to be the one running that table! :)
So the 'reward' for achieving that five-star rating is you get to judge all the problem tables?
Could be worse, I suppose - at least they're not asking you to judge a table of VOs.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The judges only...
it wasn't my only defense, i did mention common sense being to attack the rider. you didn't seem satisfied with that. Adding that taking out the summoner to bring down the eidolon seemed a good next step. that's not even guaranteed, depending on the summoner's feats. though it apparently enflamed you and your friend to no end. the other players at the table which you've dismissed as being less experienced than you/ having less of a valid opinion of things at the game table, did come up to me after the game and say they had fun, and thought you were in the wrong for being upset at it. You remember them? the nice folks your friend badgered into giving gold towards your spellcasting services?
coastalsoul5, you were at a precarious place in hit points if one hit for ~21 brings you from alive and kicking to dead dead without a critical.
i very commonly go off of aggro, and consider who's done the most damage to "me" (the monster) recently. You and your dragon were doing the most damage. And your "why would it attack me, i'm not even threatening it" stance doesn't hold up when you're riding a dragon. Wizards can't look 'non-threatening' when they have plenty of spells up their sleeves and come with a plush flying ride.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
All of the chronicle sheets have the GM's PFS number. It wouldn't be hard for a player to report how well or horrible a GM is doing. Maybe offering a minor boon to take a survey would be an easy answer to this issue.
Or you could steal the way one of my past jobs used to rate us. Have secret players who are there at the table to rate the GM and report back how things go. They can't tell the GMs they are secret players, and GMs are supposed to report if they think one of the players is going to rate them.