|
It seems to me that capping the star count of our GMs at 5--or more to the point at 150 games--is unnecessarily limiting. That's not to say that it didn't make sense in the past, but as we go on, it seems like we might want to raise the cap, because the run count of long-term volunteers is just going to keep going up.
I like the idea of needing to meet special requirements to move from 4 to 5 stars; it's not my intention to change that. But it seems like hitting 5 stars prevents further recognition--I think people who continue to run after reaching 5 stars should continue to earn stars.
The earning pattern is pretty straightforward: 10 (+20) = 30 (+30) = 60 (+40) = 100 (+50) = 150. Just keep extending that: 150 (+60) = 210 (+70) = 280 (+80) = 360 and so forth. There's no need to limit it to any set number.
For the recently-introduced rewards for star count, I see no problems. I have no issue with Kyle Baird being able to re-run an extra 10 scenarios for credit, and I actually get a huge kick out of the idea of his one +15 reroll per session. If others disagree, you can always cap either or both at 5 until we see how it works out.
Side note: It used to be that 5 star GMs required recertification; as of Guide 4.3 that went away because, per Mike Brock, "there is no way I felt comfortable removing a fifth star from a GM who had dedicated nearly 1500 hours to the campaign. It wasn't right, it didn't sit well with me." I absolutely support that--but this proposed expansion opens the door for, not re-certification, but another certification at levels 10, 15, 20, whatever.
Thoughts?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think "five-star" means something outside of the gaming context, Patrick. The top military brass are "five-star generals". The local grocery stores used to advertise "five-star meats".
For what it's worth, I think the Service Awards serve to help distinguish people who contribute to the campaign beyond running a whole bunch of tables.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think "five-star" means something outside of the gaming context, Patrick. The top military brass are "five-star generals". The local grocery stores used to advertise "five-star meats".
For what it's worth, I think the Service Awards serve to help distinguish people who contribute to the campaign beyond running a whole bunch of tables.
That's a good point, and I hadn't considered that.
I'd like to amend my proposal, then, to turn the stars into tiny little wayfinders. :D
|
|
So like 5 stars turns to one wayfinder which goes to earning up to 5 wayfinders? No real benefit except bragging rights (if the reroll bonus still caps at +5)
... I was being facetious, but actually, that's not a bad idea.
There was no real benefits except bragging rights to having five stars, either, until about 3 weeks ago. The point is 150 games is unnecessarily limited given the state of Society play at this point.
|
nah, I think our 5 star judges are MUCH more responsible than members of Congress...I think the only people qualified to discuss this topic are those with five stars already (including the campaign co-ordinator).That's a little bit asking Congress to discuss their own future salary, you realize? :P
Even considering Kyle Baird is included that number...I can't argue with that logic!
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
As somebody who will be hitting 4 stars about next week, and who is looking at the requirements for 5 stars, I don't feel that anything beyond 5 stars is really necessary. Once you hit that level, differences between GM experience are of minimal importance. With the new systems in place to reward GMs, I think that it's perfectly appropriate where it is.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
...Once you hit that level, differences between GM experience are of minimal importance.
This is a sidebar, but I'll disagree. At 285 tables, I'm still learning how to be a better GM. I'm better in some ways than I was at 200, and I hope to be better still at 350. Of course, nobody ever accused me of being a quick study.
|
|
I think "five-star" means something outside of the gaming context, Patrick. The top military brass are "five-star generals". The local grocery stores used to advertise "five-star meats".
For what it's worth, I think the Service Awards serve to help distinguish people who contribute to the campaign beyond running a whole bunch of tables.
This is actually somewhat incorrect, Chris. The military stopped doing 5 stars decades ago. 4 star is as high as you can get now.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
...Once you hit that level, differences between GM experience are of minimal importance.This is a sidebar, but I'll disagree. At 285 tables, I'm still learning how to be a better GM. I'm better in some ways than I was at 200, and I hope to be better still at 350. Of course, nobody ever accused me of being a quick study.
Oh, of course, I'm not saying that you stop learning - I'm just saying that the difference between 1 and 5 stars is greater than any variance amongst 5 stars.
|
Perhaps we keep the 5-stars, but start changing colors of stars based on GM points:
200 = 1 black star & 4 magenta
250 = 2 black & 3 magenta
...
400 = 5 black stars
500 = 1 gold star & 4 black stars
600 = 2 gold & 3 black
...
900 = 5 gold stars
I know this differs from the "add 10 for the next star" goal, but that leads to a lot of difficult to remember numbers - requireing having to calculate them all the time or use a table. Once you get to 150 it is easy to just do 50 tables until you have all black stars and then 100 for gold stars.
|
|
I think the broader question that Patrick was addressing is how do we recognize/motivate (to me these words are synonymous) a GM once they achieve the pinnacle of 5 Stars. There are an ever-increasing number of 5-Stars. People love to measure & compare. We probably agree that quantity does not mean quality, but there aren't many other metrics that can be agreed on. I haven't seen anyone in favor of player feedback or a GM review feature being incorporated into a rating.
|
|
I think the broader question that Patrick was addressing is how do we recognize/motivate (to me these words are synonymous) a GM once they achieve the pinnacle of 5 Stars. There are an ever-increasing number of 5-Stars. People love to measure & compare. We probably agree that quantity does not mean quality, but there aren't many other metrics that can be agreed on. I haven't seen anyone in favor of player feedback or a GM review feature being incorporated into a rating.
You are correct regarding my motives, though I legitimately do think my original idea would be fun.
I have seen some conversations about player feedback, and I am 100% in favor, but I was under the impression leadership found that prospect problematic to implement.
|
I think the broader question that Patrick was addressing is how do we recognize/motivate (to me these words are synonymous) a GM once they achieve the pinnacle of 5 Stars. There are an ever-increasing number of 5-Stars. People love to measure & compare. We probably agree that quantity does not mean quality, but there aren't many other metrics that can be agreed on. I haven't seen anyone in favor of player feedback or a GM review feature being incorporated into a rating.
I think all 4+ star GM's and up should get free food at every table they GM at. That would totally make more people GM more often if they say that they would always be fed once they got to a higher Star Status. But I am biased on the grounds of that just happens to me almost everywhere I GM since I became a traveling 4-Star GM this past August. ;)
In all seriousness, some of my best friends and well-rounded GM's are not 4 or 5 Star GM's. Although I do have a few favorite PFS GM's who are at that level, we all learn from each other. Growth to me, is the greatest reward that all GM's get, and you get that by investing more time into providing a fun game that accommodates to all styles of play.
For example: this past weekend, I GM'ed The Wardstone Patrol, and it was brought to my attention that something I did when it came to animating combats needed to be improved upon. I didn't even realize that I was doing what I was doing and that it needed to be fixed. So I learned, and began to make adjustments as I went along. I wouldn't have noticed or even attempted to improve upon if I was not as invested as I am as a GM to date and going forward.
Another motivator to consider: many of my fellow GM's wonder how I deal with many difficult types of players. That has only come from GMing many difficult types over time.. From the "I'm seriously new/I have no idea how to play my PC" to the "I built the most inefficient/overpowered/completely insane PC ever" to "I am a total jerk/bully/d-bag", to even people with seriously legitimate mental and physical disabilities. The lessons and tricks I have learned are only tricks you can learn and master by GMing a significant amount of time.
So to me, the star count is a number. The growth you make a GM and as person is more important. Because you can be a troll GM and be a 5-star one at that. But you can easily be one of the coolest GM's on the block, and be a 2-3 star one as well.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think all 4+ star GM's and up should get free food at every table they GM at. That would totally make more people GM more often if they say that they would always be fed once they got to a higher Star Status. But I am biased on the grounds of that just happens to me almost everywhere I GM since I became a traveling 4-Star GM this past August. ;)
In all seriousness, ...
I'll stop you right there - that is a great idea.
If you want to keep me happy, feed me. There's no further debate required on this topic.
|
|
I think all 4+ star GM's and up should get free food at every table they GM at. That would totally make more people GM more often if they say that they would always be fed once they got to a higher Star Status. But I am biased on the grounds of that just happens to me almost everywhere I GM since I became a traveling 4-Star GM this past August. ;)
In all seriousness, ...
I'll stop you right there - that is a great idea.
If you want to keep me happy, feed me. There's no further debate required on this topic.
I would like to clarify on this specific quote...
Okay, I won't lie the food is a nice bonus to GMing. But it's never an "demand". If you GM, your rewards are that you are an awesome human being. Don't ever expect people to feed you, unless you personally specified otherwise. AND EVEN THEN: Don't expect it. If it happens, be grateful and say THANKS!.
But there is a method to my madness. Let me explain:
I have hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) so I have to eat/snack regularly in order not to turn into an evil CR30 Mythic Red Dragon. But when I was an area organizer, my players noticed a trend, that if I didn't have coffee/food prior to a game, my dice were just rolling INSANELY HIGH. And I roll in the open, so everyone saw the natural 20's even after changing dice! So they ironically, started buying food/drinks for me, and all of a sudden my dice won't roll over a 10. Even with proper RAW tactics, they were all for naught, if I rolled like garbage.
So obviously, word spread and at conventions, my area leadership/organizers knew, that I have a bad habit of not eating at conventions despite having serious hypoglycemia, because I would go from one slot to the next. Or worse, I was broke..(Another reason why GM's should NOT run 5+ slots at a convention, as well as watch their budgets better!) So my players/organizers, even if they didn't sit with me at conventions, told the players that did sit with me the secret. As a result, the snacks came pouring in. Sort of like tithes to the cleric of the "Dice Gods" (Which is hilarious cause I always say I am the resident cleric.)
I am not saying to players/Paizo Leadership that we should be given food vouchers. GMing is a serious business and we should take it seriously. We GM's not only provide entertainment to the masses, we at the same time build a community of players that can do some amazing things. The community is the number one reason why many of us, despite all the powergaming, and new rules that come every year, and all the haters who heavily hate, stick around and run that extra game. Because we love what we do. At all times.
But free food does sweeten the pot. ;)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, as an example, Chris Mortika hit 300 games last month. Since that's full-on double the amount of games you have to run to get 5 stars, I think that reasonably demonstrates that the 5-star system as it stands is unnecessarily limited. I'm not criticizing the system--it made perfect sense when it was implemented--but the long-term devotion of some GMs in this campaign have surpassed the scope of its implementation, and it's time to adjust the system accordingly.
|
I think 5-star is in relation to how it used to be in the military. Combined with Mike's service coin reward, which is also borrowed from the military, I think upping the star count would not be beneficial. Non-gamers who hear "5-star" know what that means. If someone said they ate at a '15 star' restaurant, I'd be like "WTF does that mean?".
However, I think it would be fun to add monikers to 5 stars, similar to the dragon age progression. it could be tied to years in the campaign. something like that could keep a GM to continue GMing past 150 game regardless of table count. "Great Wyrm 5 Star" sounds bad ass :P
|
|
I think there should be deathmatches when GMs reach the top of the mountain.
And regarding the OP, it's been discussed in private before, options were considered, it produced the maintenance program (which was eventually dropped). I understand that there's "a lot" of 5-star GMs now, but so what? It takes away nothing from the accomplishment.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure if we need anything more....
here is why.. those of use that have hit the star cap already have the recognition that we've put in and continue to put in a crap-ton of time into promoting the game.
We've also earned (if you will allow me to use that word) the right to sit back a little and take a break after our mad dash to 5 stars.
I'm not saying that some recognition for those that do the time isn't needed somehow. I just, personally, don't want to feel like I'm having to keep up with the Jones ... i.e. Kyle and Doug by going for more stars.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
(nods sadly)
Having said that, there are more requirements than just 150 tables reported. The requirement that a Venture Officer or Paizo employee observe a GM should, in an ideal world, strain away some of the most egregious GMs.
More specifically, the requirement to run Specials and Exclusive scenarios requires the GM to attend conventions and GM for the PFS community at large. And somebody who runs tables that aren't much fun, and gets a reputation for that, won't be invited to as many conventions.
When the star system was implemented, Erik Mona explained that it was supposed to select for the cream of the GM crop. I don't think the system does that, but GM quality does factor into a GM's ratings a little. At the very least, we five-star GMs should know how to help players fill out a Chronicle sheet.
|
|
There's no system Paizo can put in place to reward a GM for running X tables AND providing a good experience. I remember when Doug got his 5th star. He had already run well over 100 tables (the requirement at the time), and it may have even been 200 tables. Doug and I discussed it at PaizoCon. Would Paizo really tell someone who's spent nearly 1000 hours running tables, a nearly equal amount prepping to run those tables, spent vacation days and time away from their family, and spent literally thousands of dollars that they're not good enough for a 5th star based on viewing a single game session?
The same things holds true today even though VO's are involved.
You have a volunteer that helps get/keep 500+ players playing PFS and buying Paizo products, they dedicate a few years of their life running and promoting their products, and then they're told they're not good enough for some arbitrary mostly meaningless reward (with almost no benefits)?
Say goodbye to that volunteer. Say goodbye to great supporter and probably say hello to someone who will find another option for their pen and paper hobby.
If someone really has met the requirements for a 5th star and hasn't gotten it yet, then they need only look at themselves. They must have done something so egregious that no one is willing to step up to say good things.
There are already 5 star GMs who don't run a great table, but they also don't turn people off from the game. They don't run a *bad* table. They're dedicated saviors of local coordinators, and they work hard to promote the game.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
I believe that going beyond five stars is fair idea, but I don't think it should only be about how many games a GM runs. I know that the requirements for a fifth star is there to be a bit more selective about who gets the that fifth, so from there I think some basic things should be noted to reach beyond five.
Running different scenarios instead of the same one over and over, running a module at some point, getting in at least one 4 star only special/exclusive before the next star and so on.
Not saying that all the above needs to be there, or that something else I haven't thought of should not be considered, but I don't think beyond that fourth star should only be a tally count.
|
|
Personally, I say add a new system on top of the old. Link the new system without a cap to GM Replays. One possibility is after every 25-50? tables past 150 allow another replay.
Oh, and Kyle, it IS possible to put rewards in place for running a number of tables and providing good experiences. Just add player feedback/ratings to reported games. All players who have a character reported as playing the scenario can give a rating on their experience for that game. You can use that rating system to reward good GMs.
|
|
Personally, I say add a new system on top of the old. Link the new system without a cap to GM Replays. One possibility is after every 25-50? tables past 150 allow another replay.
Oh, and Kyle, it IS possible to put rewards in place for running a number of tables and providing good experiences. Just add player feedback/ratings to reported games. All players who have a character reported as playing the scenario can give a rating on their experience for that game. You can use that rating system to reward good GMs.
I've never been clear on why something as simple as that isn't in place.
"But what happens when you have a bad game?" Well, it gets thrown into the average.
"But what happens when your first game is a bad one?!" Well, you can either disregard the ratings of the first few games, or you can choose not to show ratings until someone has amassed, say, 40 (which you'd get if about 2/3 of your probable player count rate you in your first ten games), or, if you don't like 40, any other number picked arbitrarily out of a hat.
I want to say maybe it doesn't kick in until you get to 5 stars, but then I feel like we're rewarding 5-star GMs with public judgment, so that doesn't work. :P
Developer
|
A few reasons against GM feedback that I recall from previous discussions:
GM ranking in this way has proven a very contentious subject. By all means feel free to discuss it—perhaps we'll hit on a good idea—but be aware that folks have debated many takes on it with little that approaches consensus.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So, just to be clear, Drake, you're recommending that a GM's advancement be based on players rating and reporting their experiences? Hmmm.
While I think it sounds reasonable on its face, I think that you would see more GMs being particular as to which players they allow at their tables. I've met maybe a handful of sour players, who are just dedicated to having a lousy time every time they sit at a table, or every time their character is challenged, or the dice don't go their way. If I saw one of those crabby players walking towards my table, I'd understand that they're just not going to have a good time, and they might ruin the experience for the other players, to boot. That would drop my player rating average.
On the other hand, my hand-picked home campaign party loves my GM style. I can get those players to rate me really high, and steer clear of those dangerous conventions, where I might meet less optimal rating situations.
(Ninja'ed by John.)
On the other hand, I would dearly love to have some GM, on break for a session, observe my table style and offer any suggestions. Players are busy paying attention to a whole bunch of other things, and it's not fair to ask them to also pay attention to how engaging I was, or how time-efficient.
|
|
I started a new thread here for discussing GM feedback possibilities in the hopes that we can avoid derailing this one into that territory.
(I recognize that I played a part in the opening derailment; this is not criticism so much as amends.)
