|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Has anyone developed an evaluation for PFS GMs?
- If you are a GM, how would you feel if someone handed you an evaluation after your game was done? Everyone says that they are open-minded until criticism begins.
- Is this a tool that has a place in PFS? We use it in the workplace all the time, but do you want to be evaluated at your hobby?
- Would you GM "better" if you knew the players were grading you?
This assumes a convention-type situation where there is no time to go over things between slots. I envision it being handed out at the start of the scenario so players could fill it out as things progressed. Categories may include preparation, storytelling, role-play, rules knowledge, time management and friendliness rated on a scale of 1 - 5 with 5 being the best. Any ideas?
|
We used to do this at our local Games Day. We also rated modules/scenarios, in part to give feedback to authors (of which many of us used to be in LG days)
We had a system that had to be simple. It had a simple rating of 1-5 on the following categories:
Preparation
Storytelling
Rules Knowledge
Overall Fun
Thus each GM received a Score out of 20
Modules/Scenarios were rated thusly:
Challenge
Story
Overall Fun
(FYI I think Among the Living still rates as one of the highest PFS mods we did back when this system ran)
GMs also got to rate players. This helped both sides be fair.
We used to do this when the LG community was strong to provide GM awards, Best Player awards, Rules Knowledge Awards, etc etc.
It kinda worked really well when everyone knew everyone else in the community, and the comments section always helped me as GM get better, particularly when it was constructive. I am not so sure it would work at a big con... We did sometimes exclude certain ratings if afterwards the head GM and other Players at the table identified a problem player, etc.
I also had one player who always left in the comment 'coulda done with more Pirates' unless the Mod had Pirates in it, in which case it was 'coulda done with some ninjas'.
There was one mod with both, where I just got a smiley face...
I honestly think Role-Playing and Storytelling are kind of the same category, and preparation and time-management are ultimately linked as well. Friendliness etc can be bundled into the 'overall fun'.
I would recommend trialing it in a well established Games Day community before a Con first... Remember some new GMs can be crushed by this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
- Has anyone developed an evaluation for PFS GMs?
- If you are a GM, how would you feel if someone handed you an evaluation after your game was done? Everyone says that they are open-minded until criticism begins.
- Is this a tool that has a place in PFS? We use it in the workplace all the time, but do you want to be evaluated at your hobby?
- Would you GM "better" if you knew the players were grading you?
This assumes a convention-type situation where there is no time to go over things between slots. I envision it being handed out at the start of the scenario so players could fill it out as things progressed. Categories may include preparation, storytelling, role-play, rules knowledge, time management and friendliness rated on a scale of 1 - 5 with 5 being the best. Any ideas?
In an official sense no I don't think there is place for it in PFS. I play/GM to have fun, and it stops there. I don't feel the need to judge others in any official setting. The fact that they are willing to GM is enough for me.
There is nothing to stop you from giving pointers or tips after the game, or even helping out during the game if you see them doing something wrong. That is how I feel it should be, be friendly about it and talk to them.
Finally if you feel the GMs in your area poor, then do it yourself. If you refuse to GM then I don't think you really have any merit to judge those that volunteer to do it.
|
|
I always ask after the game for pointers from the players. The main criticism I get is that I don't do voices, something which I know I'm absolutely terrible at.
Asking the players afterwards is the best way to do this. It's completely voluntary, so no one feels pressured to do it.
I think having an evaluation is not a good thing. I think it discourages people from GMing. In our local area, we are always trying to search for GMs to match our playerbase. The added pressure of an evaluation might be enough to drive people away from GMing.
But hey, if it works in your area, more power to you.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone says that they are open-minded until criticism begins.
You noticed that too, huh?
I welcome any sort of feedback system; what you proposed looks fine to me. In fact, I'd be happy to have it at local Game Days (where I do most of my GMing) so I could get some good feedback. I try to figure out my own strengths and weaknesses, but it's hard to be both specific and reliable for yourself without outside input. For all I know, I might be doing fine with something I think is a major issue for me, or I might be doing far worse with something than I thought, or there might be an element of my style that I'm not even aware of that players have strong (positive or negative) feelings on.
|
|
This assumes a convention-type situation where there is no time to go over things between slots.The problem with "just talk to the GM" is at a convention time is too valuable to stand around and do a hotwash. The advantage of an informal evaluation is
- the GM could review the evaluation on their own time
- the GM is getting more than one opinion. One complainer = grouchy gamer, four complainers = I'm doing something wrong.
- As evidenced by these messageboards, people will write stuff that they will never say to you in public ;)
When I solicit verbal feedback at the table, I get a whole lotta nothing. I want to do a better job, but I'm my own critic because I get nothing back to work with.
The reason that I became a GM in the first place was I suffered through so many bad GMs I finally had enough. But on the few occasions that I do play, I rarely see anyone 'stepping up' their game. It's a mechanical operation of reading box text, scrawling a map with a Basic Flipmat and running combats like a computer game. Is this because, as Baelor put it, the fact that they are willing to GM is good enough? What about when you are at Winter Fantasy and players are paying $8 a game? Should they expect anything more? I have always believed that competition is good.
I suspect the truth is that many GMs won't change. The good ones are always looking to improve and the bad ones don't care. But if we never try what right do we have to complain? GMs may not realize how much impact their actions are having at the table.
|
|
This assumes a convention-type situation where there is no time to go over things between slots.The problem with "just talk to the GM" is at a convention time is too valuable to stand around and do a hotwash. The advantage of an informal evaluation is
- the GM could review the evaluation on their own time
- the GM is getting more than one opinion. One complainer = grouchy gamer, four complainers = I'm doing something wrong.
- As evidenced by these messageboards, people will write stuff that they will never say to you in public ;)
When I solicit verbal feedback at the table, I get a whole lotta nothing. I want to do a better job, but I'm my own critic because I get nothing back to work with.The reason that I became a GM in the first place was I suffered through so many bad GMs I finally had enough. But on the few occasions that I do play, I rarely see anyone 'stepping up' their game. It's a mechanical operation of reading box text, scrawling a map with a Basic Flipmat and running combats like a computer game. Is this because, as Baelor put it, the fact that they are willing to GM is good enough? What about when you are at Winter Fantasy and players are paying $8 a game? Should they expect anything more? I have always believed that competition is good.
I suspect the truth is that many GMs won't change. The good ones are always looking to improve and the bad ones don't care. But if we never try what right do we have to complain? GMs may not realize how much impact their actions are having at the table.
honestly, this type of system would make me more likely to GM at a convention. Local guys are unlikely to provide feedback, especially if it's negative. I really need to work on my prep, I know that.
I think I also gloss over unimportant details more than I should, but in PFS I do this partially for pacing, but it's a challenging balance.
It takes time for players to investigate and ask questions about the "tiny book of fairy erotica" but in actuality it doesn't do anything.
I tend to finish adventures in 2.5-3 hours sometimes less. I'd like real an honest feed back, the truth hurts but I always want to improve...why do something if you're not going to at least try to impove at it :D
|
|
Thanks for the derail Todd. I supposed that's just karma for me.
Local guys are unlikely to provide feedback, especially if it's negative.
I agree with this. There's a shortage of GMs in my area and I think players fear if they were to become critical of a GM, the GM might stop volunteering. That's a negative fantasy, but it's a trap nonetheless.
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
We have a reporting sheet that is used by the local game conventions to "grade" GMs during their conventions. I am a big champion of systems like this and what they engender in their judging base (see the success of The DCI's system for Magic: the Gathering for an example).
However, the system that is used by Denver conventions is terrible. It asks questions, and gives varying points for different answers. A GM can score as high as 10 and occasionally scores as low as 6. The average is around 9.5, which, of course, is the problem. Players feel guilty when they don't give their GMs a perfect 10, due to the very thing you stated: everyone is open minded, right up until they don't get a perfect score. Thus, these sheets aren't really an accurate representation of a GM's skill.
We've had a lot of debates about how to fix this, but so far have been stymied. I'm sure it's a matter of asking the questions the correct way, but without having a social engineering or psych degree, I can't see how that should be accomplished. I'd love to see any insights you have.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
I think it would be a valuable tool if it is initiated by the GM. I think inexperienced GMs, or GMs who aren't expecting an evaluation, would be intimidated or put off if they got ambushed by one. I always welcome feedback from my players, whether praise or criticism, because it helps me fine-tune my game--and no matter how good a GM you are, you can always stand a little bit of fine-tuning.
I would be much less in favor of it if the evaluations were player initiated. Imagine if every thread on the Paizo boards where some PFS player was Monday morning quarterbacking the session where their favorite character got killed, or they didn't get full PA, got turned into a surprise evaluation. One can imagine what kind of chilling effect that would have on many GMs. I'm secure enough that I can handle criticism, but there are plenty of GMs out there who are not--yet! That kind of maturity comes with experience, which they may never get if they're turned off of GMing by an ambush evaluation.
tl;dr: Yes, I like feedback, but it should be something the GM can ask for, not a way for disgruntled players to ambush a GM.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'm sure it's a matter of asking the questions the correct way, but without having a social engineering or psych degree, I can't see how that should be accomplished. I'd love to see any insights you have.
I have one. PM me and I'll see if I can come up with anything to help your feedback system. (And in return, your area can be my guinea pig!)
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I'm sure it's a matter of asking the questions the correct way, but without having a social engineering or psych degree, I can't see how that should be accomplished. I'd love to see any insights you have.I have one. PM me and I'll see if I can come up with anything to help your feedback system. (And in return, your area can be my guinea pig!)
Done. I look forward to seeing what you have, my friend.
|
I don't care about improving my 'game' but that's because you can't improve upon perfection.Must be nice living outside the confines of reality. You must be huffing the same stuff Baird does.
Except that I huffed enough "stuff" to actually transcend your puny reality and become something so much more...
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
We've got our own local professor of sociology. When you want professional work, you hire a professional.
I'm not looking to report a GM to the convention for sucking or being awesome, I'm looking to make the oblivious GM aware they are missing the mark or give the GM looking to constantly refine some constructive feedback.
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
We've got our own local professor of sociology. When you want professional work, you hire a professional.
Yeah, the locals just used their own "connections."
To give you an idea of what our sheet is like: when it became public knowledge that many of us were discontented with the existing sheet and a new one was being considered, the guy who wrote it made sure to show up for a convention (for the first time in a couple years) and personally berate the woman in charge of RPGs for even considering using a different system, which, of course, would be inferior. I was told the attack was thorough enough that she considered quitting the position for good. Think that guy writes a good evaluation?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
We've got our own local professor of sociology. When you want professional work, you hire a professional.Yeah, the locals just used their own "connections."
To give you an idea of what our sheet is like: when it became public knowledge that many of us were discontented with the existing sheet and a new one was being considered, the guy who wrote it made sure to show up for a convention (for the first time in a couple years) and personally berate the woman in charge of RPGs for even considering using a different system, which, of course, would be inferior. I was told the attack was thorough enough that she considered quitting the position for good. Think that guy writes a good evaluation?
/facepalm
|
Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds
|
I'm not looking to report a GM to the convention for sucking or being awesome, I'm looking to make the oblivious GM aware they are missing the mark or give the GM looking to constantly refine some constructive feedback.
This, by the way, should be the goal of any of these sheets. It is what WotC correctly pulls off with the system they use for The DCI, and the culture among their judging staff is awesome.
Unfortunately, I think the line is so fine that crossing it is easy. Also, the culture of RPGs is significantly more social, and largely populated (strangely) by people who are not at their best in social situations. Magic has a far more business-like approach, and that helps with their evaluation system a lot.
|
|
Except that I huffed enough "stuff" to actually transcend your puny reality and become something so much more...I don't care about improving my 'game' but that's because you can't improve upon perfection.Must be nice living outside the confines of reality. You must be huffing the same stuff Baird does.
"A legend, Mr. Caubo." ? We've gone so delusional we now think we are Liam Neeson leading the League of Shadows?
Someone call in the looney bin for Baird.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone says that they are open-minded until criticism begins.You noticed that too, huh?
I welcome any sort of feedback system; what you proposed looks fine to me. In fact, I'd be happy to have it at local Game Days (where I do most of my GMing) so I could get some good feedback. I try to figure out my own strengths and weaknesses, but it's hard to be both specific and reliable for yourself without outside input. For all I know, I might be doing fine with something I think is a major issue for me, or I might be doing far worse with something than I thought, or there might be an element of my style that I'm not even aware of that players have strong (positive or negative) feelings on.
I think that it would great to have a way to evaluate the GMs. Too many that I have played with have easily bruised egos and I could use a non-confrontational way to give them pointers or feed back without having to fear the backlash.
|
|
my 2 cents: i would appreciate something formalized for this, because i do not consider myself that great of a gm, and it would be nice to know what people think i could work on.
i only gm because i feel it is my responsibility to do so so that the people who regularly gm can play their characters. unfortunately not everyone who plays regularly thinks so.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32
|
I would not like it, for the simple reason of a lot of the GMs in our groups, actually intend to play when they show up, You only get a 1/2 hour of prep time, and they volunteer it too... If you get a bad evaluation from someone that doesn't understand this it would lead to people not playing. To someone that signs up as a GM, the only comment Can we focus a little more on _____. Anything more is insulting, fun is for everyone.
A good GM should be able to figure out your playing style by your actions during the game and adapt (if possible)
Sounds like this is an organizational problem. If this is the case, I would personally recommend having an "on deck" GM with a well-prepped scenario ready to run. Hopefully, they can play, but you can't always guarantee that.
Running some season 4 scenarios, like Severing Ties, with that little prep could easily lead to a very unfun situation for everybody or a TPK.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would not like it, for the simple reason of a lot of the GMs in our groups, actually intend to play when they show up, You only get a 1/2 hour of prep time, and they volunteer it too... If you get a bad evaluation from someone that doesn't understand this it would lead to people not playing. To someone that signs up as a GM, the only comment Can we focus a little more on _____. Anything more is insulting, fun is for everyone.
Putting aside for a moment the obvious issue of your area needing a more competent organizer, what exactly do you picture happening when someone gets a bad review? So a GM looks at a review he got and it says "OMG HE WAS SO UNPREPARED!!!1!1". Okay, so what? If the GM knows that was out of his control, why should the comment bother him in the slightest? Are your local GMs really so emotionally fragile that they would quit if someone said something negative, even when it's about a problem the GM is already aware of?
