|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it might sound weird but I would love to have an option to have a board meant just for GMs to meet up, get advice, swap stories and get answers from other GMs. As it stands the rules, advice, and suggestion forums are all good but as it stands giving helpful answers can depend entirely on who is asking and who is answering in regards to questions of rules, builds, and mechanics. The option to propose a GM question and expect a GM answer might go a long way to helping new and veteran GMs get the help they need.
Beyond that PFS has it's own board to fulfill a similar need and having some facsimile of that but decoupled from pfs could help everyone.
Would love to hear the peoples thoughts though on the ideas.
|
I would love a section like this - discuss details and issues with various modules - expanded sections, how to handle running an encounter, etc. Most of the rules an advice section is taken up by player questions and issues - or the GM questions get lost in the shuffle due to the low ratio of posts by comparison.
And I think a section for new GMs, GM tricks, handling different play-styles/wbl/campaign styles, sections where we can post full scenarios monster write ups and magic items - anything with the notion of "GMs only". I think it would be great.
I doubt Paizo will touch this though - it would require a re-working of the suggestion/homebrew and conversion threads and I don't know how you wouldn't keep players out or from posting (and derailing) threads by presenting player views/input to what should be a GM only discussion. Even that concept alone will anger some people.
Would be nice to have a dedicated section for us.
|
|
I would love a section like this - discuss details and issues with various modules - expanded sections, how to handle running an encounter, etc. Most of the rules an advice section is taken up by player questions and issues - or the GM questions get lost in the shuffle due to the low ratio of posts by comparison.
And I think a section for new GMs, GM tricks, handling different play-styles/wbl/campaign styles, sections where we can post full scenarios monster write ups and magic items - anything with the notion of "GMs only". I think it would be great.
I doubt Paizo will touch this though - it would require a re-working of the suggestion/homebrew and conversion threads and I don't know how you wouldn't keep players out or from posting (and derailing) threads by presenting player views/input to what should be a GM only discussion. Even that concept alone will anger some people.
Would be nice to have a dedicated section for us.
I think it can be done. PFS has a board just for GM's to discuss scenarios and their various GM needs right on here already. I don't see how this would be hard to just make a second one with similar stipulations and themes but aimed more broadly at GM's in general rather than just PFS ones.
As for player posts that bring it off topic having said board would allow people to just flag them as off topic in most cases since unless it has something specifically to do with the players (like say an "Ask the GM's" thread or "Would you allow this?" thread) would be off topic.
Finally they could also make sure to put a warning label in the top description that this board would likely be full of spoilers so visit at your own peril.
Bad idea imo. You can do this yourself in the topic of the thread.
Anyways everybody can be a GM, and all GMs can be players, so why try to force an artificial boundary on the forum?
Just state what kind of perspectives and input you want in the OP.
Would it mean that I would have to put my GM cap on every time I open that section? I think I left it at home...
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would love a section like this - discuss details and issues with various modules - expanded sections, how to handle running an encounter, etc. Most of the rules an advice section is taken up by player questions and issues - or the GM questions get lost in the shuffle due to the low ratio of posts by comparison.
The AP volumes already have GM reference threads for each book in the appropriate AP forums, and I've seen similar threads for specific modules in the module forum.
Personally, I think GM threads are better off split up into their various product forums than in one big subforum. I may be GMing one campaign while playing in another; this way, I know I can go into a GM reference thread for a game I'm running without rubbing up against spoilers I don't want to see for a game I'm a player in.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would love a section like this - discuss details and issues with various modules - expanded sections, how to handle running an encounter, etc. Most of the rules an advice section is taken up by player questions and issues - or the GM questions get lost in the shuffle due to the low ratio of posts by comparison.The AP volumes already have GM reference threads for each book in the appropriate AP forums, and I've seen similar threads for specific modules in the module forum.
Personally, I think GM threads are better off split up into their various product forums than in one big subforum. I may be GMing one campaign while playing in another; this way, I know I can go into a GM reference thread for a game I'm running without rubbing up against spoilers I don't want to see for a game I'm a player in.
No one saying the other ones wouldn't still exist but having one overarching forum meant just for GM chat seems to make sense. It would allow gm's to ask questions and talk shop with one another in a space that is meant for that kind of talk and for people that specifically want to have it and allows for us to talk about the various issues, tasks, and work that comes with that job that spread across all GM experiences.
As for the idea of spoilers as mentioned above the whole forum description would be marked with a big spoiler tag about search at your own risk just like how those other forums have similar markers or assumed ones due to the nature of the thread (seriously if you decide to read over the GM tools guide to Carrion Crown or Kingmaker and want to then complain about spoilers it's kind of your own fault). On top of that I doubt that a GM is going to do a title that reads as "The big spoiler to mummies mask is "___" help me" and not end up flagged by the web team.
|
|
Bad idea imo. You can do this yourself in the topic of the thread.
Anyways everybody can be a GM, and all GMs can be players, so why try to force an artificial boundary on the forum?
Just state what kind of perspectives and input you want in the OP.
Everyone can be but not everyone is. In my area I gm 95% of all the games I and my base of participants are involved in and my challenges are far different than theirs and likely stuff that they aren't thinking about or even need to worry about.
I have to worry about my narrative, encounter balance, legal books, house rules, playability of the storied moments, how entertaining is this character, do these rules make sense, does this scene involve rules that my players know, do I need to teach them said rules, where should we play, how do we parse out the time required, online play, off game play (do we run rp in between games), etc. The list goes on and on and the one thing all of these have in common is that these are primarily problems the GM is meant to work out, organize, or likely lead the charge in and the players barely have to worry about. Having a space where I could go through all of this with other people who go through it too would be awesome and help keep the conversations on those kinds of topics and in a GMs mindset.
As for the whole state mindset we've seen how that works and how many threads can get completely derailed by any other talk so its really just not enough. Hell I could give examples here but I would be afraid this thread would devolve into another thread highjacked by those same topics which I think illustrates the point pretty well.
|
As for the whole state mindset we've seen how that works and how many threads can get completely derailed by any other talk so its really just not enough. Hell I could give examples here but I would be afraid this thread would devolve into another thread highjacked by those same topics which I think illustrates the point pretty well.
I'm not sure how this will keep any thread on topic any better than the current system, which includes GM threads clearly marked as such. GMs do not all work the same, play the same, or think the same, so they can have just as wildly varying opinions as the greater body of players. GMs are not necessarily more polite, more capable of reasonable discourse, or more able to take constructive criticism than players. This is because whether you are a GM or a Player, we are all gamers, and we are all human.
So, if this won't accomplish what you are trying to accomplish, then adding yet another separate area to the board to track down information for GMing a game, then making GMs that also play weigh the "How important is this, is it worth risking spoiling that one game I actually get to play in?" every time they come in, then I'm not sure it is the best way for GMs to share information.
|
|
As for the whole state mindset we've seen how that works and how many threads can get completely derailed by any other talk so its really just not enough. Hell I could give examples here but I would be afraid this thread would devolve into another thread highjacked by those same topics which I think illustrates the point pretty well.I'm not sure how this will keep any thread on topic any better than the current system, which includes GM threads clearly marked as such. GMs do not all work the same, play the same, or think the same, so they can have just as wildly varying opinions as the greater body of players. GMs are not necessarily more polite, more capable of reasonable discourse, or more able to take constructive criticism than players. This is because whether you are a GM or a Player, we are all gamers, and we are all human.
So, if this won't accomplish what you are trying to accomplish, then adding yet another separate area to the board to track down information for GMing a game, then making GMs that also play weigh the "How important is this, is it worth risking spoiling that one game I actually get to play in?" every time they come in, then I'm not sure it is the best way for GMs to share information.
1. No they do not all think the same but we all do have to deal with a lot of the same problems and quandaries and having a space built and designed to focus on that aspect (which encompasses most of gm'ing) would be a wonderful addition.
2. As for all the problems listed above about tracking down information and possible spoilers those are issues you already face every time you go searching for things on these boards. You want to go looking around in the mummies mask board and see "GM resource for mummy's mask" thread and decide to open it you are going to get spoiled. That all falls into the risk you take if you just want to blindly stroll the boards without taking into consideration both where you are and the topics that are being covered as referenced in the board title.
Beyond that if you are really worried about spoilers then you wouldn't just troll around the boards anyway, just use the search key on the side, type in what you want to search for, and set it to message boards. And now you've just pulled a large list of data closer to what you actually wanted while avoiding spoilers to other games you might be playing in.
|
|
1. My point is, why would this be better? People being what they are, and GMs being people, this change is not likely to avoid derails, so what does it do to make it better than the current system?
2. Second, I, just like any other person (note, I didn't say GM, everyone matters, no matter where they sit at the table) out there, have just as much right to use the message boards as anyone else. If your answer to the problems I mentioned, problems that are not problems with the current system, btw, is that I should just not read the message board except through a narrowly defined window of the search function, that's not exactly an endorsement of how much of a "wonderful addition" your change will make. It also will not avoid the spoilers as well, given how a search function works vs a human mind looking over titles and headers and sub headers.
The PTBs have stated in other areas that they are reluctant to add anything that makes the boards longer without good cause. I am looking for the cause in your argument that makes this better for a large percent of the message board population without making things worse for a large percent of the message board population.