Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
What exactly does any system proposed here have over the current system (contact a VC, VL, or Mike Brock via email or private message)?
The only reason things are being discussed here is because there is a perception that the current system isn't working. And I think that's probably true - instead of using the current system, players are grouching about bad experiences to the next groups they play with. If they'd had the chance to drop off a feedback form (and the other people overhearing the complaints also knew that this was an option), this might defuse the situation. Maybe all that needs to be done is to actively encourage players to make use of the current situation, but I doubt it; I think anonymity is an important thing to consider.
I'm sure there will be some number of unjustifiable complaints - that's human nature. So I wouldn't expect every complaint to automatically raise concerns. If I'm getting two or three times as many complaints per table I judge than the next guy, though, perhaps somebody *should* raise the issue with me. Of course I'm sure that I'm doing a good job, and that the complaints are unjustified. But I'm sure almost all the GMs engendering these complaints feel the same way, too. Volunteer GMs don't usually set out to deliberately do a bad job. But it's another fact of human nature that everybody considers their own capabilities to be "above average" - it's always the other guys who need to get their act together.
|
|
A boon for feedback is just boon-glut into the society and greedy imo.
Feedback forms are not a difficult thing and they are voluntary .. have a stack at the HQ desk, with a box to put them in .. by the time the con is over the HQ person isn't going to know who is who in all honesty except for the GM pfs numbers so it's not as tho he's going to know who the players are to be able to retaliate against them.
Let's stop over thinking this a bit...
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32
|
To be honest, after hanging out with him, I imagine Mike walking into a game to say only, "I need your dice, your character sheets, and your chronicles." Robot versions of him would be better then holograms anyway. How would a hologram hold a rambunctious Kyle on the ground?
|
Ok so there are some promising Ideas here but back to the point, lets not have a discussion on whether or not to implement a better feedback system or whether or not it works. Lets look at something that might work better. This is my thought: Allow players a rubric in order to evaluate their experience.
X \1 \2 \3 \4
GM Preparedness \GM was \GM took some \Gm was adequately \GM prep was
late/cold \time re-reading\prepped \ Exceptional
GM Knowledge \GM didn't know\ GM lacked \ GM was well versed \ GM's know.
\Basic rules \PFS Spec. rules\ in PFS rules+lore\ was excep.
Scenario Quality
Scenario Difficulty
Immersiveness
Overall Experience
You get the idea there would be other qualifiers in other categories of course
|
This has to be simple to be effective. Anything electronic isn't really going to work (who is going to bother when getting home at midnight?).
Do what businesses do. Have a very simple card available for people.
They fill in the GM name or number, the commentors name is optional.
The card has a few precanned questions like the ones suggested above. And a space for comments.
The card is handed to the event coordinator, VL or VC. If they're not around, email it or mail it to your local VC or VL.
Have a box if the person is willing for the GM to see the card (with or without their name). If they're NOT willing then the recipient has to collect and paraphrase the comments.
Keep it all at the local level. Mike really, really doesn't want to know how good a job I do.
Yeah, this is imperfect. If the Event Coordinator or VL likes one GM and dislikes another things might get handled differently. But this really is a place where
KISS (Keep it Simple. Stupid)
counts. A LOT.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
That's more-or-less how I see it, paul: just simple cards with a few canned questions and a comment space. I would add that a box to drop it in would be good, for an increased sense of anonymity.
Since Jiggy has essentially boiled down what has been most of the back and forth here, I have a suggestion to make for those that find this idea solid.
Go ahead and make up some of these cards and grab a shoebox. Head to your next game night or local con and implement the idea. It'd be a good way to test it out, and see what kind of feedback you're getting in your local area. In fact, I'll probably do this tonight at my FLGS.
|
|
I apologize for not reading this thread beyond Jiggy's initial post.
For PFS, I think a simple feedback system, like the one that EBay uses, would be best.
If you haven't used Ebay, it works the following way:
1) When you do a transaction, you can rate the transaction as "Positive", "Neutral", or "Negative".
2) It also allows you to leave a comment (it would be nice if we could leave longer comments).
Whatever system is implemented, I think it should have the following qualities:
1) Simple: It should be simple.
2) Qualitative: It should be more qualitative than quantitative. GMs should NOT be rated from 1-10.
3) Quick: The problem with the feedback being qualitative is that not everyone wants to take the time to write something (proven by the limited amount of scenario reviews). This is why I wanted to use a simple Positive/Neutral/Negative rating system.
4) Additional Information: The scenario should be part of the required information (perhaps linked by the event #).
5) Private: I think most of the feedback should be private, it's less embarassing for both parties.
EBay has the user ratings and comments available to everyone. Unfortunately at most conventions it's not like we get to choose our GMs, so it's debatable whether this information would be of good general use. Of course, this knowledge is highly useful to VCs and VLs, so they should be able to see it.
Would the number of positive, neutral, and negative reviews serve any purpose to the public? Maybe.
6) Anonymous: There should probably be a choice of whether you want to leave comments and feedback anonymously or not. Without anonymous, you can't leave negative feedback for local GMs. Without rating anonymous, most shy people would choose not to rate at all.
7) Contested: GMs should be able to contest rating and comments. Or at least hide them so they can't see them anymore (out of sight out of mind).
8) Players: GMs and other players should probably also be able to leave comments for other players. It's only fair after all. This way when VC/VLs/Mike looks at a player/GM, they can see a pattern to their behavior.
Oops, that was longer than I wanted.
You should not have the players fill out the GM's PFS number. That breaks anonymity since the GM is "tipped off" that a review is being written, and it discourages shy players since they have to ask the GM for his number when they are planning to write a poor review.
It should be enough, in theory, to have the venue and date, plus the scenario name, and the GM's name to identify the person after the fact.
Idealy, the GM would hand out feedback cards with his number pre-filled, but that may not happen for GMs not interested in feedback.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think we should encourage an online complaint bin for people to vent about GMs.
I think we should instil a culture of mature, face-to-face and congenial discussion between players, GMs and VOs. Simply taking five minutes to alert a VO that a GM doesn't know the rules will be far more effective than aggrieved players hopping online to seethe (about matters as redundant as the BBEG targeting their AC12 caster instead of their AC25 brute.)
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
How about this:
A couple few GMs volunteer to run at a convention. They decide, ahead of time, to review and critique one another. Ideally, they all ask to run sessions of the same scenario. Each GM has a session off, during which she observes one of the other GMs running the adventure, and is in turn observed by another.
Immediately after the convention, they get together, debrief, and analyze each of their strengths and areas for improvement.
It has the advantage that it can be implemented this weekend, without the convention organizers having to moderate things. It had the additional advantage that nobody gets feedback unless she wants to participate.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
You should not have the players fill out the GM's PFS number. That breaks anonymity since the GM is "tipped off" that a review is being written, and it discourages shy players since they have to ask the GM for his number when they are planning to write a poor review.
The player's chronicle sheet will have the GM's PFS number on it, so no worries there.
@Kestler Gunner - Wow, you make it sound like someone would be more upset by the time they got to the messageboards than they would be right after their bad experience. That's an... interesting view. There will be complainers regardless of what system is used, but I think folks with legitimate complaints are more likely to lose their nerve after waiting a while, as the anger/hurt fades and gives way to fear of rocking the boat or being seen as a complainer.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That's more-or-less how I see it, paul: just simple cards with a few canned questions and a comment space. I would add that a box to drop it in would be good, for an increased sense of anonymity.Since Jiggy has essentially boiled down what has been most of the back and forth here, I have a suggestion to make for those that find this idea solid.
Go ahead and make up some of these cards and grab a shoebox. Head to your next game night or local con and implement the idea. It'd be a good way to test it out, and see what kind of feedback you're getting in your local area. In fact, I'll probably do this tonight at my FLGS.
I had the same thought, but ran out of time at work. ;)
I think everybody's various local games would be a great place to field test different implementations of a feedback system.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
I think everybody's various local games would be a great place to field test different implementations of a feedback system.
I'm not so sure. At the local games most of the people have got to know each other over time, so are far more likely to deal with problems amicably at the table. Or, if a GM or player is out of line, the event organiser is very likely to learn all about it.
A better place might be a regional con. It's probably a bit late to think about it now, but there are at least three taking place over the Labor Day weekend - Pacificon, DragonCon & Gateway.
|
|
@Kestler Gunner - Wow, you make it sound like someone would be more upset by the time they got to the messageboards than they would be right after their bad experience. That's an... interesting view.
I'm not saying they'd be angrier by the time they vented online, I just used lots of synonyms for angry. But it did give that impression :)
|
|
What type of complaints are you looking to catalog, Jiggy?
Local Games:
- Static - When complaints are raised in small largely static groups (assuming, a single table), the idea of anonymity might not be necessary as members would typically respect one another. If there's a problem, just handle it how you would in a normal (non-PFS) game, either speak to the DM on the side or speak to the player on the side. In the event that neither party know exactly how RAW would work, agree for one side (or both) to ask the question online and see if the matter will be resolved before the next session.
- Variable - In a group that might span multiple tables (assuming there are enough DM's and players for this) and where players are apt to moving between tables (for any reason), an anonymous "DM's Box" system might be worth including if only to protect newer members or individuals that tend not to play with a particular DM very often.
Convention/Event Games:
- Convention - Due to the large number of people who tend to attend a single convention, either a DM's Box or a (non-mandatory but highly appreciated) online survey (that aggregates results, notifies Paizo staff, and PM's DM's) might be useful.
- In the case of the above, a qualitative analysis with questions such as "On a scale of one through ten, how much did you enjoy this DM's session?" should be avoided and replaced with questions like "What portions of the DM's session did you enjoy participating in and why?"
- A small segment of questions (Paizo use only) that reflects the player's opinion about the scenario used during the session.
- A small number of questions corresponding to the aforementioned questions concerning how either the DM or Paizo can improve.
- Events - Admittedly, I haven't ventured past the boundaries of my own particular block of land so I'm not sure how any convention beyond where I live works, but using the same system as either Local Static or Variable games should work (or, they do here, at least...even if said events are never for PFS here...).
If it's just being kept simple though, as Command Sheppard said, use a shoe box and either leave the room when the cards are being turned in or have the players drop it into the box as they leave.
For GMs who want to improve, I would propose a certification program, like the education profession has Master Teachers.
For one thing, it can review a GM's performance under Best Possible conditions, as opposed to Random Poor Experience.
While I agree that such a program would be an interesting (and possible) solution, the major problem with such a proposal is that it involves quantifying particulars of DMing and considering which aspects of DMing are more valuable than others (largely due to how coverage and emphasis work). As an example, while student teachers are almost always taught how to react to a struggling student, there is rarely enough emphasis on both resolving the issue and mitigating the effects on the rest of the class (I apologize if this isn't specific enough but I'll try to find a non-confidential example if needed).
[Edit]
Oh! I know! Here...I hope this works as an example.
Many new teachers are told to outline their educational plan and submit their lessons when they're done. However, in most cases, these educational plans (and the individual lessons) tend to be incomplete or place less emphasis than necessary on particular variables (such as students who might not understand or student interaction). To counter this, new teachers are often given lesson templates and examples for use in their educational plans (though, some schools insist on making this available to all teachers).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What type of complaints are you looking to catalog, Jiggy?
Presumably whatever types have prompted Mike Brock to state (as I quoted at the start of this thread) that he wants to implement a feedback system.
I don't know what additional information Mike has (I would presume he knows more than me about what goes on at all these cons I don't attend), but from what I've experienced, seen, and read on the boards, my impression is that most bad experiences with GMs tend to be one of the following types:
• Altered one or more encounters
• Bullying or picking on one or more players
• Refused to be corrected on basic Core Rules*
• Knowingly applied house rules
That's what I keep seeing or hearing about. But I don't have access to enough information to know how representative that sample is of the population.
Sometimes, there are weird situations that the rules don't cover because the situation is too rare and obscure need a rule. The GM has to adjudicate something on the fly. Similarly, sometimes a rule is unclear (like exactly when the subject of charm person gets a new save or auto-breaks it) and the GM has to adjudicate it on the fly.
I'm pretty sure everyone's fine with that.
Other times, a GM misremembers a very concrete detail (is the attack bonus for higher ground +1 or +2?) and is easily corrected just by pointing to a single line in the CRB. Most GMs don't seem to take issue with this, and all is well.
Then there's this other type of situation, where a rule is not as glaringly obvious as the latter of the above situations (you have to follow an actual logical process to arrive at the answer), but it's also not unclear in the slightest.
For example, suppose a rule makes a blanket statement that all of X is handled a certain way, and then a couple of specific situations of X list themselves as exceptions to that procedure. A plain, rational reading of those rules makes it clear that any type of X that isn't a listed exception will use that procedure, no matter what it is. But sometimes a GM says "Sure it's X, but the rules don't say what to do with this type of X, so I need to make the call". The situation falls under the blanket rule (often even by the GM's own admission), yet it's treated by the GM as undefined.
When challenged, the GM cites "adjudicating unclear rules" and asks the player to point to where the rules specifically say that this example of X is handled in a certain way. Since they obviously can't (because the whole point of blanket rules is so you don't have to list each example individually), the GM says "See? It's undefined!"
If someone tries to say anything about the GM not seeing reason, he then "proves" how rational and fair he is by citing all the times he's let himself be corrected on those obvious, numerical errors that I listed at the top of this spoiler.
So when I mention rules complaints, that's what I'm talking about. Not whether or not a GM will be corrected on a bonus amount, and not whether or not they are doing a good job of adjudicating unclear rules. I haven't encountered complaints about that. I'm talking about the in-between, when a GM fails to extrapolate something rationally. Like when GMs said that taking 10 took 10 times as long, and pointed out that the rules didn't say otherwise. Or when GMs claimed that a medium-sized mount needed to be Pushed to enter a building, and again said "the rules don't say I can't enforce that, I'm just adjudicating". Or when GMs said that carrying a second weapon in your other hand would invoke TWF penalties on all your attacks even if you didn't take an extra attack, and once again it was "the rules don't contradict me". The list goes on, and every time the GMs were saying "the rules don't contradict me" and "I let people correct me all the time".
I can't speak for everyone, but I've encountered this a lot. Heck, I've even gotten PMs (completely unsolicited and unexpected) from multiple people complaining about high-ranking GMs doing things like this, telling me to give up on them, or that they just like arguing, etc.
So hopefully this wall of spoiler text can preempt folks who might misunderstand the meaning of including rules issues in the list of complaint types.
|
Actually I don't think those are the only or biggest issues. Well, maybe the house rules one.
I once had a GM at Gencon say that a group of wights (who were supposed to have zero intelligence in the adventure) could stay inside the floor and only touch the bottoms of our feet, thus preventing our readied attacks. We quite literally could not win or survive no matter what we did and our party was TPKd. GM was a nice guy but needed so
guidance on what the game is about.
More common is the lack of preparation. GMs who take 20 minutes or more every time they have a turn because they don't know the adventure and/or go back and change big things they forgot in the middle of a combat. Note this is not GMs filling in at the last second but ones who had a week or more to prepare and didn't bother. GMs running cold are given a free pass in my book.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Actually I don't think those are the only or biggest issues. Well, maybe the house rules one.
I once had a GM at Gencon say that a group of wights (who were supposed to have zero intelligence in the adventure) could stay inside the floor and only touch the bottoms of our feet, thus preventing our readied attacks. We quite literally could not win or survive no matter what we did and our party was TPKd. GM was a nice guy but needed so
guidance on what the game is about.More common is the lack of preparation. GMs who take 20 minutes or more every time they have a turn because they don't know the adventure and/or go back and change big things they forgot in the middle of a combat. Note this is not GMs filling in at the last second but ones who had a week or more to prepare and didn't bother. GMs running cold are given a free pass in my book.
Interesting; very different from what I usually hear about. Good thing we can get data from multiple sources! :)
Although I guess it's a bit of a derail for a thread about feedback implementation. :/
|
|
I don't think the feedback system should be designed to deal with minor rule variances (such as the example of whether a GM attacks the summoner before the eidelon).
It should be designed to catch major issues that affect the playability of the scenario. All the usual minor grumbling should be ignored.
|
|
True but you get the idea. Was mostly just agreeing with others that those types of minor beefs can be ignored. I would put stuff like Jiggys examples 10x the time to take 10 in a similar category. Minor issues to be expected between GMs. I only gripe to my GM if it's a big issue that effects our survivability.
|
|
I once had a GM at Gencon say that a group of wights (who were supposed to have zero intelligence in the adventure) could stay inside the floor and only touch the bottoms of our feet, thus preventing our readied attacks. We quite literally could not win or survive no matter what we did and our party was TPKd. GM was a nice guy but needed so guidance on what the game is about.
Wraiths. Neil told me about that. Your GM broke a few rules doing that, including the tactics and rule changes given in that specific scenario.
You'd think that if someone didn't fully prepare a scenario, they would tend to be more lenient.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would put stuff like Jiggys examples 10x the time to take 10 in a similar category. Minor issues to be expected between GMs. I only gripe to my GM if it's a big issue that effects our survivability.
Player: I take 10 on [whatever].
GM: Okay, about 5 rounds into that, the bad guys hear you working on it, take a couple of rounds to buff up, and ambush you.Player: Huh? It only takes [action] to do that.
GM: Taking 10 takes longer, therefore you're still not done when the encounter starts.
-----------
GM: Alright, that's what you needed to do for your faction mission, so make a [whatever] check to see if you succeed.
Player: Sure, I'll take 10 and get [number].
GM: Sorry, you can't take 10 because that involves doing it 10 times and the first failure would cost you your faction point. You have to roll it.
-----------
Player: What kind of knowledge check to ID the monster?
GM: Arcana.
Player: Okay, using my Lore Master ability, I'll take 10 and get [number].
GM: Sure. In ten rounds when you finish, I'll let you know what you got for that check result.
------------
If it was trivial, it wouldn't have spawned enormous threads in which multi-star GMs accused anyone who wanted to T10 on important checks of "trying to get away with something".
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey! I'm running a game tonight. I think I will do a little experiment.
I always ask for feedback from my players when we are wrapping up the paperwork. Sometimes I tell them this before we start, sometimes I don't. I have found I get better, more constructive criticism when I announce it before hand, but not always. So tonight, before we start the game I will pass out my PFS ID card, which has my name and PFS number on the front and my email address on the back. Along with this I will pass out a one sheet questionnaire containing the four questions I usually ask at the end of the session.
The idea is I can collect these after folks have departed and after I have turned in the session report to the event host. Thus I won't be able to compare hand writing and know which PC(s) will meet an untimely death next session. I already know who those people are.
I know most of the people who play in our area (at least in passing), but not everyone. Plus, I think I am going to GM a low tier table tonight so I hope to meet a few new players and get their feedback. I'll let the peanut gallery here know how it goes tomorrow sometime.
Should be fun!
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
(stuff about Take 10)
The problem is that not every GM has a firm grasp on the mathematics underlying Take 10 and Take 20.
It's pretty obvious that "Take 1" only requires the time to make one check. And "Take 20" is explicitly described as taking 20 times as long. So there's a very strong temptation to extrapolate from that to the erroneous conclusion that Take 10 must take ten times as long.
In fact, of course, it doesn't. If you do the same sort of calculations as those on which on which the "Take 20" figure is based, you don't end up with a result of 10 rounds. Interestingly enough, though, you don't come up with the value of 1, either - the expected number of rolls to achieve a value of 10 or higher is (almost) 2, not 1.
That's because the "Take 10" is actually a different sort of thing. It removes the uncertainty of a roll by, instead, taking (slightly less than) the average value (that 'slightly less' can be thought of as the cost for avoiding catastrophically low rolls). That's what PFS does for hit points on leveling up, too, except that there the result is also rounded up, so the character ends up with one extra hit point.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The reason for GMs making those kinds of mistakes isn't quite relevant to the facts that (1) the errors happen, (2) they can often be non-trivial, and therefore (3) some degree of system mastery should be incorporated into whatever feedback system is put in place, without GMs getting defensive about it.
I don't think Jiggy is coming down on those who make mistakes. I think he is saying that a way to help fix those mistakes should be available.
Improvement is always a good thing, and the GM should want to be better.
|
|
I think that anything more than adding a statement to the guide saying "Contact your local VO or Mike Brock if there are any issues" is going to be counterproductive. Why do we need a centralized, archived database in place to make sure that every GM understands how T10 works?
Most GMs will generally hear rules arguments from a player either during or after a scenario is over. The GM-player relationship is not (or at least, should not be) an adversarial one. If there is an adversarial GM who is violating rules at your local game day, the system should not be to immediately report them to Paizo; instead, the local event organizer should be notified as a first step.
Jiggy, to get back to something I said previously: If you are asking Paizo to monitor judges for violating rules or to rate their level of System Mastery in a centralized database, and you feel that there should be an enforcement mechanism to make sure that rules are followed or system mastery is improved, it seems to me that you ARE asking for Paizo to police judges.
I feel that doing anything beyond the local level is both impractical and unnecessary.
|
|
• Altered one or more encounters
• Bullying or picking on one or more players
• Refused to be corrected on basic Core Rules*
• Knowingly applied house rulesThat's what I keep seeing or hearing about. But I don't have access to enough information to know how representative that sample is of the population.
For the latter two, how about a binder with a basic summary of rules for conditions, actions, and so on, (a page citation included) and PFS changes that either DM's or players could carry around with them?
I don't really know what to say about the first and second though, I'm not entirely sure how to approach the matter (as I've never really had that problem) but, if Paizo isn't involved, I still support the magical shoe box of anonymity.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Refused to be corrected on basic Core Rules*
That should be treated with caution. It could be "continued to rule incorrectly, even after having the correct rule pointed out to him" (which is bad), or it could be "declined to retcon the encounter where he had ruled incorrectly, because it would just waste everybody's time, and not materially affect the outcome" (which is the right way to handle it, IMO).
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Refused to be corrected on basic Core Rules*That should be treated with caution. It could be "continued to rule incorrectly, even after having the correct rule pointed out to him" (which is bad), or it could be "declined to retcon the encounter where he had ruled incorrectly, because it would just waste everybody's time, and not materially affect the outcome" (which is the right way to handle it, IMO).
So you're saying that invalid complaints should be disregarded, just like with every other category of complaint ever?
Yes, I agree. ;)
|
|
I suggest a standardized card for the players to fill out while the GM is doing the chronically sheet paperwork at at the end of the session. Importantly, these cards would have the GM# and email addresses of both Mike and the local VC incase something needs to be communicated to them. Otherwise, the cards are given back to the GM for his own edification. GMs would then be encouraged to talk to a VC or post to this board any feedback that they need help with.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to throw my two cents in here. While feedback cards and other ways of communicating to the GM are all well and good, I don't know about you, but there are a lot of people out there that won't write down their honest opinion if they think the GM will be reading it.
With that said, I don't see what the big deal is about judge feedback. As an Event Coordinator, I am choosy about who I ask to judge at my events. Any time I have a newer GM, I keep an eye on their table to make sure they aren't having any problems and to get an idea of their judging style (and to be able to encourage them afterwards!). There are specific GMs I always try to get new players to sit with because I know they will get people to come back. I see that as part of my job as a VO.
Understandably, this can't happen at larger events such as Gen Con or PaizoCon. What I would suggest for such larger events is this: when people volunteer for such large events, ask their local VO's for an honest opinion of their skills as a GM (at least in the case of new folks or people not known personally to the event coordinator). They would know them best, after all. Or even possibly ask them to supply the names of a VO or two that could recommend them. This probably won't work for everyone, since not everyone has a local VO, but it is at least some form of vetting before letting them loose on the convention population :p
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
If you make it harder to volunteer to judge at a con, you'll end up with not enough judges for the tables. There's the viewpoint that it's always better to seat a player than to turn them away; I'm not convinced that this is right, but certainly turning a player away is bad.
The current system at least has the advantage of getting new players their first experience at a PFS table. If less players quit because of a bad experience than would give up on PFS because they couldn't even get a game, I guess it's a net win. And at least if the event coordinators, etc., get a chance to work with any under-performing judges there's a possibility they'll turn out to be a lot better than they were initially. You can't do that if they never volunteered at all because they couldn't (or couldn't be bothered to) provide a couple of VO references.
Of course an event organiser, even now, can go over the list of judges who have volunteered, and seek out a VOs opinion of any they don't know (and maybe even throw in a 'secret player' observer at their table if a VO has expressed reservations). But that's a lot of work, and I don't get the feeling that event coordinators have a lot of spare time on their hands. And if you don't have enough qualified people volunteering as GMs, where are you going to find those secret observers? They'd need to know the scenario well enough to be able to judge it blind (otherwise how else are they going to spot changes in tactics, etc.), so they're going to be even harder to find than GMs.
|
|
If you make it harder to volunteer to judge at a con, you'll end up with not enough judges for the tables. There's the viewpoint that it's always better to seat a player than to turn them away; I'm not convinced that this is right, but certainly turning a player away is bad.
I don't agree with this statement; at least it seemed to me that the Tier 1 GM slots filled up very quickly for Gen Con. Why not take a little longer to fill up the slots and at least try to vet the GMs beforehand? This vetting could be as simple as asking their local VO for the thumbs up. It is definitely more work than simply accepting all comers, but in the long run I think it's worth it, especially if it keeps us from losing that first time player who had a bad experience while letting us turn away as few players as possible.
In terms of local cons, IMHO it is each Event Coordinator's responsibility to arrange judges. When I started planning for the small con I will be running in September, I had a list of judges that I had in mind for the event and I started the bribing and wheedling right away ;)
|
|
One more thing, I don't think that immediate feedback is the best.
If a player is upset, sometimes he needs time to calm down and internalize before commenting appropriately. Sometimes, that player might change their mind or feel it was fair after thinking/talking about it.
Also, if you're writing comments on the card after the game, if I was borderline upset, I'd be inclined to give the GM some of my thoughts right there, which may or may not be a smart thing to do.
So what I'm saying is that it's probably better if feedback were given the day after the event.
If the feedback is positive or neutral, it will still be positive or neutral the next day.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another strong factor that makes GMs look good or bad, that no one has discussed, is the scenario difficulty.
If you have an average GM and the scenario has a normal or easy difficulty level, players can still walk away with a good experience (and the GM might even get a good rating). If you have an average GM and he kills most of the party and they fail, a lot of casual and new players will dislike the experience and rate the GM (and game) poorly (a good GM might even get a bad rating), and they probably will never play PFS again.
So what I'm saying is that I don't think that killer scenarios should be used for tier 1-5 scenarios. I know we asked for more difficulty, but quite a few scenarios in season 3 are too deadly for new and casual players.
God's Market Gamble is an appropriate challenge level (although it can be frustrating and can kill). Quest for Perfection 1 is fairly killer and over the top if the GM runs it correctly (it's actually better to run it non-optimally for new players at the end, then it's still fun). Temple of EE is over the top as well. This is great for the experienced PFS player, but new players will be saying "this is too intense".
Another thing that veterans players (and some GMs) have to understand is that a lot of new players don't have the same tolerance for death and failure that you do. So guess what? You're going to get a bad rating because they didn't enjoy themselves. Some of you will say "That's too bad, the game isn't interesting if you can't fail". You're missing the point. These are new players and they don't know what the hell is going on. If you want to be cruel and beat the crap out of my PC in tier 5-9, go ahead, but I just don't think it's a good idea (if we want PFS to grow) to do it in a tier 1-5 scenario.
I think scenario difficulty is one of the main reasons we're hearing complaints about GMs at Gencon this year.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know what additional information Mike has (I would presume he knows more than me about what goes on at all these cons I don't attend), but from what I've experienced, seen, and read on the boards, my impression is that most bad experiences with GMs tend to be one of the following types:
- Altered one or more encounters
- Bullying or picking on one or more players
- Refused to be corrected on basic Core Rules*
- Knowingly applied house rules
I left this thread a couple of days ago, and I returned to find it a more civil discussion that I was expecting. Kudos to you all.
Minor Point
Jiggy, how would the typical player be able to adjudicate #1?
Do I remember correctly that theres a note in the Guide that asks players not to read an adventure after playing it, in order to find out whather or not the GM changed some stuff around?
Major Point #1
What is the purpose behind this kind of activity? Are you looking to give encouragement to GMs? Are you looking to discourage poor GMs? Are you looking to give the campaign staff a metric by which to rank GMs? Is it supposed to be fun?
With a great amount of respect to all of you:
I don't think this system will encourage anybody.
I think it's likely to discourage novice GMs and shrink the GM pool.
It really doesn't sound like fun to me.
Major Point #2
Jiggy, you're right: a lot of complaints about bad experiences have these qualities.
But it does not necessarily follow that a session with these qualities is going to be a bad experience.
I've read [name of Paizo Contributor redacted] talk about all the PFS sessions he's run. He re-rolls initiative every round, and he uses the Critical Hit and Critical Fumble decks. He treats the rules as if they were subordinate to a great story and a great time.
I've played under [Venture Officer redacted] who looks at the scenario, at our actions, and sends things off the rails. If we're strolling through the scenario -- always a danger for Season 0 adventures -- he toughens up the opposition (I remember one encounter when our Subtier 1-2 team faced the 1-2 opponent, then the 3-4 opponent, then the 6-7 opponent, and then two clones of the 3-4 opponents... I checked afterwards). He'll break rules -- like making sure the Bad Guys go first in combat -- in ordr to tell a good story. Sometimes, we live; sometimes we die. But we always have a thrilling time.
Try to codify it as you like, but there's one and only one symptom of a session where the players don't have a fun time: the players aren't having a fun time.