|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Before saying anything else, I have tremendous appreciation for the folks that run a pile of adventures. I obviously run few, but my ratio is somewhere between 1:2 and 1:3.
I have seen several posts in the past week or two, including at least one from a VC, along the lines of, "You know nothing, you don't even have a star," or "...you only have 1 star," and so forth. One of these was directed to me, most of them to others.
Folks, this is just another form of ad hominem and a reverse form of the logical fallacy of appealing to authority. It's basically saying, "I'm discounting you and your argument, or labeling your opinion as questionable because you've only GMed X games, at most."
Folks, we're better than that. Let arguments stand on their own merits, not who makes them. People go through different periods of their life when they may be more or less active in organized play. There are a lot of people here with experience from other organized play programs and have experienced the trials and tribulations that they entail. That information and experience is meaningful; PFS deals with many of the same issues, and handles many of them better to my thinking. Others have some very good insight, whether they GM a lot or not. Some people have the experience of running 100 PFS games, and others have the experience of running 1 PFS game 100 times. Give respect to the dedication, but stars alone don't support a position, nor does the lack of them mean an argument is without merit.
Of course there is a bit of self-interest here, but this really only puts me in a place to be aware that it is happening. This isn't motivated by my own lonely star. Rather, it is motivated by the observation of a two-classed society.
Just to reiterate, I have a great deal of appreciation for the people that put on a lot of games. I'm not taking anything away from them in saying this. Please take this in the positive manner it is intended.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey Howie
First off congrats.
Second...we should always try to elevate our peers to a level of respect and conduct with our expectations. More so, with our own actions.
Third...don't ever let the trolls get to you. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
And finally...
Remember, a constellation is made not by numbers alone, but by how the pattern inspire the gazer as well.
|
It makes me sad to hear that even Venture-Captains, who by their title are representatives of Paizo every time they come onto the forums, would fall into this. We're only human and everyone likes feeling that they're superior in some way, but holding it over others to use as "your opinion doesn't matter" is frustrating.
I know someone who has been GMing games fairly regularly since the days of AD&D, but only a few weeks ago ran his first (and so far, only) organized play event. Does his lack of stars mean he's an ineffective GM? Definitely not.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
While I generally agree with you that this isn't great, I feel that I should explain why I did it in one thread. Trust me when I say that I am all for new GMs stepping to the forefront and starting to run games, but when somebody who hasn't GMmed even 10 games starts talking about the motivations of experienced GMs or how often new players come back and contradict strongly the more experienced, I do scratch my head a bit. It's not that their opinion is less valuable, it's that they just have less experience with the campaign and are seeing a very, very small slice of it at that stage. I say this in part because I, myself, said a lot of really inadvisable things about GMs and GMming when I first joined these forums, things which I regret. Had I waited until I had more experience with the campaign, I would have had a broader and less vitriolic approach to things.
No, having fewer stars beside your name doesn't make your opinion worth less. It does, however, mean that your opinion may be skewed due to a lack of experience. Does that make any sense?
|
While I generally agree with you that this isn't great, I feel that I should explain why I did it in one thread. Trust me when I say that I am all for new GMs stepping to the forefront and starting to run games, but when somebody who hasn't GMmed even 10 games starts talking about the motivations of experienced GMs or how often new players come back and contradict strongly the more experienced, I do scratch my head a bit. It's not that their opinion is less valuable, it's that they just have less experience with the campaign and are seeing a very, very small slice of it at that stage. I say this in part because I, myself, said a lot of really inadvisable things about GMs and GMming when I first joined these forums, things which I regret. Had I waited until I had more experience with the campaign, I would have had a broader and less vitriolic approach to things.
No, having fewer stars beside your name doesn't make your opinion worth less. It does, however, mean that your opinion may be skewed due to a lack of experience. Does that make any sense?
I have been playing D&D since it first came out in 1974 and have been involved in organized play since the days of Living Greyhawk. I have been published in Dragon Magazine and on Wizards Online site. I worked as an online moderator for Wizards, was a Triad for LG and a Writing Director for LFR. But I have only been involved in PFS for less than a year. So as you can see, I currently only have one star. So anyone assuming I don't know what I am talking about just because they see I only have one star would be gravely mistaken, not to mention highly annoying. The stars are Fame points. Having lots of them usually means you know what you are talking about. The converse is not necessarily true.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Again, Bill, I am speaking about PFS-centric questions, not general rules discussions. I completely agree that there are many, many people who are excellent with rules but do not have a star. Second, I would consider you to be a reasonably experienced person as far as the organization bit goes - you do have a star, so you have clearly assisted with a few local game days.
Let me talk a bit about when I first started on this forum. I've told this story a few times, but...I started playing PFS at a convention. Nearly died in First Steps 1. We had to surrender to the boss. Then, I played The Golden Serpent with a pregen - I did pretty well, but it's a tough scenario and it seemed like we were only surviving because of the really excellent, experienced players at the table. [It was still a great experience, and through that game, I met one of my best friends.] My third game was Voice in the Void, which ended in a TPK before the VC looked at the scenario and realized that our GM had made a mistake. My fourth game was Rise of the Goblin Guild, in which I nearly died due to a rather poor choice on my part [which I didn't understand was a poor choice at the time]. Then, I asked to start GMming and was assigned Severing Ties as my first scenario. I read over it, in particular the big boss at 4-5, and was flabbergasted. Also, at that point, we really didn't have any PCs above 5 - I assumed because everybody kept dying all the time.
I was pretty angry.
I came on these forums and started complaining about the difficulty, railing against a lot of the people that posted and made some accusations that were rather hasty. Why? Because I wasn't fully aware of the broader state of PFS. I have been in only one near-death situation after that in PFS, and most of the other scenarios that I have played or GMmed have been exceptionally easy.
I say this to illustrate my point - when I said that, it wasn't about rules questions or anything of that nature - my point is in regards to comments on the broader state of PFS. You really will have a skewed viewpoint if you are a new player trying to make big arguments on the state of the game.
|
|
I say this in part because I, myself, said a lot of really inadvisable things about GMs and GMming when I first joined these forums, things which I regret. Had I waited until I had more experience with the campaign, I would have had a broader and less vitriolic approach to things.
So, with hindsight, you are saying you wouldn't have expressed your opinion? I think it is a sign of a healthy ego for someone to want to express their opinion without worrying "maybe I don't know enough to say anything???".
I will say that with more PFS-specific experience, a person gains a lot of perspective in particular to things intrinsic to organized play. However, even though I will be running my 100th PFS game this weekend, the amount of PFS GM experience I have is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the years and years (almost thirty now) I have game mastering in total. I could see how if someone told me I had "no experience" GMing and my opinions about GMing were less than theirs because I "had one or no stars" (given my background), I might be upset with them.
Nobody likes to be told "sit down and shut up".
|
|
I was pretty angry.
I came on these forums and started complaining about the difficulty, railing against a lot of the people that posted and made some accusations that were rather hasty. Why? Because I wasn't fully aware of the broader state of PFS. I have been in only one near-death situation after that in PFS, and most of the other scenarios that I have played or GMmed have been exceptionally easy.
Ok, that makes sense... in a way, you are trying to save someone from experiencing the things you went through that left you feeling angry. That is actually a positive thing. :-)
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I say this in part because I, myself, said a lot of really inadvisable things about GMs and GMming when I first joined these forums, things which I regret. Had I waited until I had more experience with the campaign, I would have had a broader and less vitriolic approach to things.So, with hindsight, you are saying you wouldn't have expressed your opinion? I think it is a sign of a healthy ego for someone to want to express their opinion without worrying "maybe I don't know enough to say anything???".
I will say that with more PFS-specific experience, a person gains [u]a lot[/u] of perspective in particular to things intrinsic to organized play. However, even though I will be running my 100th PFS game this weekend, the amount of PFS GM experience I have is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the years and years (almost thirty now) I have game mastering in total. I could see how if someone told me I had "no experience" GMing and my opinions about GMing were less than theirs because I "had one or no stars" (given my background), I might be upset with them.
Nobody likes to be told "sit down and shut up".
No, I would have still expressed my opinion, you're right. I think that I had some good points, and many of the points that I made are points that I continue to make. However, there are other things that I now disagree with, and that I wish I hadn't put so abrasively. I accused some people of boasting about PC deaths and things of that nature - things that I really haven't seen happen in hindsight.
I think that new players should post on these forums, and I value their opinion. However, when a new player posts on these forums and is rude to people, and when that new player tries to claim experience that he doesn't have, I feel it necessary to call them on it. When I made that post, it was directed at a person that I felt had been rather rude [he's improved since then!] and at a person who was claiming that he, as an experienced player and GM, would lose interest in the game if a certain policy were adopted. The problem is, he's not an experienced GM, and from what I've gathered, not an experienced player either. It's nothing personal, it's not that his opinion has no merit - my point is that he simply lacks the perspective necessary to make the points that he was making.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Ok, that makes sense... in a way, you are trying to save someone from experiencing the things you went through that left you feeling angry. That is actually a positive thing. :-)I was pretty angry.
I came on these forums and started complaining about the difficulty, railing against a lot of the people that posted and made some accusations that were rather hasty. Why? Because I wasn't fully aware of the broader state of PFS. I have been in only one near-death situation after that in PFS, and most of the other scenarios that I have played or GMmed have been exceptionally easy.
Well, and to save them from making an ass of themselves in public.
|
|
Again, Bill, I am speaking about PFS-centric questions, not general rules discussions. I completely agree that there are many, many people who are excellent with rules but do not have a star. Second, I would consider you to be a reasonably experienced person as far as the organization bit goes - you do have a star, so you have clearly assisted with a few local game days.
And here is the problem with that assumption. I started organizing local PFS games right after the first time I played First Steps at a Con. I am fortunate that our local group has a high percentage of people willing to DM. So while I organize most of the games I split my DMing duties with at least 6 other people. That makes my PFS organizing experience a lot higher than my one star would indicate.
|
|
No, having fewer stars beside your name doesn't make your opinion worth less. It does, however, mean that your opinion may be skewed due to a lack of experience. Does that make any sense?
It only makes sense if you only want to count PFS GM experience as valid and all other GM experience as worthless. Which, as trollbill succinctly pointed out, is very, very foolish.
VOs and star counts have been quite successful at segmenting this community and making it more clique-ish.
-Skeld
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Trollbill: If somebody hasn't even GMmed 10 times, I feel that it's hard for them to really see the big picture. You have GMmed 10 times, however, so my statement doesn't apply to you. 10 games is a pretty big commitment, honestly, and there are only a handful of us locally with even one star.
Skeld: My point is a lack of experience with the PFS campaign, not one of other gaming systems or other games. The home game experience and the D&D OP experience is vastly different from PFS in a number of ways. Paizo does things differently than LG did, and home games don't have the same strictures that PFS has. PFS is also a game that is open to the public and played on a continuing basis, unlike one-off convention games or home games. PFS is its own beast, and some topics of discussion are very specific to it, like player/GM motivation and the difficulty of scenarios.
|
|
Trollbill: If somebody hasn't even GMmed 10 times, I feel that it's hard for them to really see the big picture. You have GMmed 10 times, however, so my statement doesn't apply to you. 10 games is a pretty big commitment, honestly, and there are only a handful of us locally with even one star.
I am not trying to establish my own credentials and have not personally been dissed for my lack of stars. Nor am I assuming you personally don't think I know what I am talking about. I am merely trying to point out just how innaccurate using lack of stars as a measure of competence can be.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
And I'm trying to point out that what I am saying has nothing to do with competence, but rather perspective. If you have never GMmed and have only played under one particular GM in Pathfinder Society, then you really can't say that PFS scenarios are too hard as a whole - it may be that the GM has been selecting harder scenarios or that the GM plays a bit more hardball than most.
|
|
People always call other people out because of lack of experience. I mean this even happens for the young and the old. An older person has the capability to been in a certain genre of games a lot longer than a younger person, and there is nothing the younger person can do about that.
The prejudice of experience will always exist. But in some cases it's merited. Someone who has worked in a line of something for several years is going to know more about it in general than someone who has never worked in the same line of work.
I have to agree with Netopalis in the sense of the PFS campaign only. People can easily already have tons of experience with Pathfinder itself and with playing PFS, and to comment on how their experience is in almost every facet of PFS is perfectly fine. Honestly, to comment on the state of GMing in PFS specifically is also fine, and a good point may even be brought up as experience certainly isn't everything, but should be taken with a grain of salt due to never having experienced it before.
I would compare that to someone who says they don't like Coca-Cola, but have never tried it and are basing their opinion only on how much they like Pepsi.
I guess people need to have a more open mind, which is the point of this whole thread.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
People always call other people out because of lack of experience. I mean this even happens for the young and the old. An older person has the capability to been in a certain genre of games a lot longer than a younger person, and there is nothing the younger person can do about that.
The prejudice of experience will always exist. But in some cases it's merited. Someone who has worked in a line of something for several years is going to know more about it in general than someone who has never worked in the same line of work.
I have to agree with Netopalis in the sense of the PFS campaign only. People can easily already have tons of experience with Pathfinder itself and with playing PFS, and to comment on how their experience is in almost every facet of PFS is perfectly fine. Honestly, to comment on the state of GMing in PFS specifically is also fine, and a good point may even be brought up as experience certainly isn't everything, but should be taken with a grain of salt due to never having experienced it before.
I would compare that to someone who says they don't like Coca-Cola, but have never tried it and are basing their opinion only on how much they like Pepsi.
I guess people need to have a more open mind, which is the point of this whole thread.
Exactly. And honestly, I welcome frank, respectful discussion on PFS-centric points from new players - it just frustrated me in this one particular instance when the new player attempted to claim experience that he did not have. Normally, I would never say that sort of thing, but I was frustrated and felt that the fact needed to be pointed out.
|
|
VO and star counts have been quite successful at segmenting this community and making it more clique-ish.-Skeld
Anytime you reward people for greater participation it is going to foster elitism. But not doing so means people are less motivated to promote and participate. So overall it is usually worth it. You just have to keep an eye on it to make sure it doesn't get out of control. I used to avoid organized play like the plague because the few times I dipped my toe in the waters I found it full of elitist sharks. I eventually did take the plunge, however. And I realized that the elitism was a side effect of the glue necessary to hold the organization together.
|
|
Generally Howy, I agree 100% with your sentiment.
However, as Neotopalis is saying, there were a few people making widely sweeping generalizations about how GM’ing organized play scenarios should be done and completely ignoring the experienced words of V-C’s, V-L’s, 4-star, and 5-star judges.
Now I agree, that the number of stars or a title doesn’t always make one right. And the lack of GM experience within Pathfinder Society does not make one a crappy GM or stupid or ignorant. However, when one bluntly tells folks that their experience doesn’t mean anything, and that they are wrong, and that things should work a certain way, without any obvious experience within the Pathfinder Society Organized Play Campaign itself…
You tell me, how much credibility should we lend those words?
Especially when they are discussing things directly related to how the organized play campaign w
It's also worth mentioning that I know some 3+ star GMs that I would never want to sit at their table again. Stars do not equal greatness as a GM.This. Stars mean nothing.
Eh, not really. Stars don't cause you to be a great GM and being a great GM won't cause you to get stars... But that doesn't mean there isn't a correlation nor does it imply that stars mean nothing.
|
|
And I'm trying to point out that what I am saying has nothing to do with competence, but rather perspective. If you have never GMmed and have only played under one particular GM in Pathfinder Society, then you really can't say that PFS scenarios are too hard as a whole - it may be that the GM has been selecting harder scenarios or that the GM plays a bit more hardball than most.
I remember my first Living Greyhawk experience. I was at a Con playing miniatures and had a free slot so I decide to try it. We had 5 players, a 2nd lvl ranger, a 3rd level ranger, a 4th level wizard, a 1st level cleric, and me, a first level Druid. Some of the players had already played the scheduled mod so they pulled out another one which turned out to be a level 3-7 mod which we really weren't supposed to be playing. Right off the bat the higher level characters were telling me how I had to tank since they were so much more effective at range. Never mind they had 3 times my HP and much better ACs. The adventure starts with us entering a village where a hundred villager have gathered in the village square for a witch burning. A woman approaches us and claims her daughter has been falsely accused of witchcraft and begs us to save her. One of the rangers immediately pull out his bow and shoots at one of the village leaders. We tried to stop him but he wins innitiative. The mob screams we are in league with the witches and charges us. With a hundred angry villagers charging us the rest of the party took off and headed for the hills, leaving me and the ranger. He noks another arrow to start killing villagers but I beg him to please give me the bow instead. He screams, "No, you are going to break it." I tell him I will buy him a new one if that happens and he reluctantly gives it to me. I put the bow down on the ground as a sign of surrender and try to diplomasize the crowd. I only have a +3 and the DM decides it will take a DC 20 to calm them down. I failed and we had to run away. So less the 10 minutes into the adventure it is over. We get no rewards and cannot ever play that adventure again. I am not sure why I tried LG again after that but if I had based my opinion solely on that one experience I am sure I wouldn't have.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
And that's a good and valid point. However, what I am talking about here is a player who, in another discussion thread, started screaming bloody murder when an expereinced GM told a story about coup de grasing an experienced PC over a newbie. He then started talking about the relative value of the PCs, marketing technique, policy, and advocating that we should *always* be deferential to veterans over newbies, because it "costs less to retain customers than to gain new ones." He also warned that this GM's actions may have ended up turning veteran players off of PFS.
After a ridiculous number of posts, I pointed out that, based on his star level and the listed levels of his characters, he really wasn't a "veteran", and that he should really GM more before he started making such sweeping generalizations about the campaign and player motivations.
Was this wrong? Maybe, maybe not. I hope that you can at least see that it was justified. It has nothing to do with whose opinion is more valuable, nor does it have to do with who should be allowed to speak. All I am saying is that experience breeds understanding, and that, in some rare circumstances, new players need to be reminded of that.
|
|
And that's a good and valid point. However, what I am talking about here is a player who, in another discussion thread, started screaming bloody murder when an expereinced GM told a story about coup de grasing an experienced PC over a newbie. He then started talking about the relative value of the PCs, marketing technique, policy, and advocating that we should *always* be deferential to veterans over newbies, because it "costs less to retain customers than to gain new ones." He also warned that this GM's actions may have ended up turning veteran players off of PFS.
After a ridiculous number of posts, I pointed out that, based on his star level and the listed levels of his characters, he really wasn't a "veteran", and that he should really GM more before he started making such sweeping generalizations about the campaign and player motivations.
Was this wrong? Maybe, maybe not. I hope that you can at least see that it was justified. It has nothing to do with whose opinion is more valuable, nor does it have to do with who should be allowed to speak. All I am saying is that experience breeds understanding, and that, in some rare circumstances, new players need to be reminded of that.
The issue is not experience versus inexperience but rather how good an indicator a lack of stars is.
And this thread is not meant to be an attack on your personal behavior but rather a general warning about making assumptions based on Stars to everyone that posts here. No one single issue is the point.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
And that's a good and valid point. However, what I am talking about here is a player who, in another discussion thread, started screaming bloody murder when an expereinced GM told a story about coup de grasing an experienced PC over a newbie. He then started talking about the relative value of the PCs, marketing technique, policy, and advocating that we should *always* be deferential to veterans over newbies, because it "costs less to retain customers than to gain new ones." He also warned that this GM's actions may have ended up turning veteran players off of PFS.
After a ridiculous number of posts, I pointed out that, based on his star level and the listed levels of his characters, he really wasn't a "veteran", and that he should really GM more before he started making such sweeping generalizations about the campaign and player motivations.
Was this wrong? Maybe, maybe not. I hope that you can at least see that it was justified. It has nothing to do with whose opinion is more valuable, nor does it have to do with who should be allowed to speak. All I am saying is that experience breeds understanding, and that, in some rare circumstances, new players need to be reminded of that.
The issue is not experience versus inexperience but rather how good an indicator a lack of stars is.
And this thread is not meant to be an attack on your personal behavior but rather a general warning about making assumptions based on Stars to everyone that posts here. No one single issue is the point.
GM stars are an obvious indicator of experience with the campaign specifically. Therefore, it shouldn't be taken as a surprise that they are used as an indicator of experience with the campaign.
I have never seen a person's stars, or lack thereof, brought up in another context. Also, to my knowledge, I am the only person who has done it recently on the forums.
|
|
GM stars are an obvious indicator of experience with the campaign specifically. Therefore, it shouldn't be taken as a surprise that they are used as an indicator of experience with the campaign.
I have never seen a person's stars, or lack thereof, brought up in another context. Also, to my knowledge, I am the only person who has done it recently on the forums.
The OP mentions multiple incidents so it isn't just you. Just one person doing this would not be worth a discussion.
You are correct that a high level of stars indicates a high level of experience. And experience does carry weight. The point of this thread, however, is that a low level of stars is not necessarily an indicator of a low level of experience, and that people should not jump to conclusions based on that.
|
|
My GM has 4 stars but he lost his pw to this site. He said people don't listen to him when he posts on his new account without stars.
I'm noob here but is that what this post is about?
A couple of things you should tell your GM.
Paizo does not allow people to have more then one account, once they realize he has 2 they will ban one of the accounts.
He can get his password reset on the log on page.
If he is using a different email address then the one he made the first account with he can email customer.service@paizo.com about his password problem.
|
|
...except that it IS an indicator of a low level of experience *with this particular campaign*.Its an indicator of a low level of experience DMing this particular campaign. Big difference.
And since the previous argument was largely regarding GM'ing... completely relevant to what Netopalis is talking about.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I'll admit, I hate it when I say something here and people react to the number of stars next to the name. "Oooh. Somebody important said that my pants are full of cheese." or "How can you say that, as a representative of Paizo and the campaign?!"
On these boards, I'm not a representative of Paizo, of course. I'm not an insider with secret information, either. I'm a guy who has figured out a little about GMing through trial and error, but who still has a lot to learn. I'm a fan, same as anybody else.
So, an n-star GM offers an opinion, consider whether their experience is relevant to the topic. Toughness of scenarios, probably. Ability to speak in a funny voice for Drangle Dreng, you bet. General gaming know-how, not particularly.
|
|
And since the previous argument was largely regarding GM'ing... completely relevant to what Netopalis is talking about....except that it IS an indicator of a low level of experience *with this particular campaign*.Its an indicator of a low level of experience DMing this particular campaign. Big difference.
I believe the specific incident arose from a discussion of player retention. One can note a pattern of "Hey, we killed new guy numbers 3,5,6,9, 12, and 14 and only new guys 3 and 9 came back" as a player just as easily as a DM- particularly since the guide recommends against offing the newbies.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
And since the previous argument was largely regarding GM'ing... completely relevant to what Netopalis is talking about....except that it IS an indicator of a low level of experience *with this particular campaign*.Its an indicator of a low level of experience DMing this particular campaign. Big difference.
I believe the specific incident arose from a discussion of player retention. One can note a pattern of "Hey, we killed new guy numbers 3,5,6,9, 12, and 14 and only new guys 3 and 9 came back" as a player just as easily as a DM- particularly since the guide recommends against offing the newbies.
The new player was recommending that GMs contradict the guide and start offing newbies before veteran players.
|
|
I'm glad this has been taken well, and kudos for keeping the conversation polite. It isn't that y'all need my approval, but I think many of us have a tendency to feel some sense of ownership with a thread they start, and some analogy to a role as host.
I think most of the posts here are in support of my original post and generally positive for the community. Discussion has come down to what is effectively defense of using lack of stars as a sign of lack of experience for PFS-specific matters.
Stars are a sign of experience in GMing PFS. Nothing more, nor nothing less. And said stars would be useful in gauging experience in PFS-specific matters if no other experience were useful toward accumulating experience in such matters.
A GM is in the best position to reconcile the material they are given and the options that they have bringing that material to the table. It doesn't mean that someone who doesn't GM much has no clue. Issues like evaluating the deadliness of an encounter or set of encounters, softballing vs. a high degree of tactical ability, writing for a wide variety of character types and party make-up, the unpredictability of convention table mustering, writer vs. player arms races, etc. are universal to all organized play programs. And because it is universal, experience from other organized play programs is directly transferable to PFS. This is true for some of these elements and non-organized play.
In contrast, a GM who's only organized play experience is in PFS is experiencing the arms-race and/or changing threat level in year 4 for the first time. In other words, such a GM may have GM'd 100+ PFS adventures, but does not have as much context for the change that they are experiencing.
These are a couple of points on a continuum. Different people bring different perspectives to the discussion table. Value them all for what they are and don't discount them for what they aren't.
Thanks for participating in this thread.
|
|
As a separate point, I wanted to throw a thought into the ring regarding the stars type discounting in general.
I was called out for a lonely star by a new poster. I think the fact that it was a new poster was what drew my attention to it. And, with my attention drawn to it, I started to see it elsewhere. I call this the Blue Pinto Syndrome; ask sometime if interested. It drew my attention because it was learned behavior.
If you've ever had the experience of hearing a young child spout off like the proverbial sailor, you've seen what I'm talking about in play. You might think it is amusing, or you might see it as being a problem. If you see it as a problem, you are likely either gonna think one of two things, "Someone needs to talk to that kid," or "Someone needs to talk to that kid's parents."
The new poster who called out my lonely star was likely doing so after seeing others do so. And maybe they were doing so in an context that they would defend. But the new poster doesn't have that context and has learned by observation that this is something to do when you disagree with someone and they have absent or lonely stars.
So, even if you are of the opinion that there is a circumstance when star count is a meaningful measure of an opinion, please consider that you are also serving as an example to others.
Thanks.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the opinion of new GM's to the campaign, and GM's with little GMing experience, is absolutely vital.
Why?
Because if they become discouraged then our growth as a community is stunted.
Now sure they are gonna have some points and ideas we have heard before and addressed previously, but that should be handled with responding via logic and reason, and hopefully a link to a prior discussion with a kind reminder to search for a forum topic before posting ;p
Just like any bell curve the folks on either end of it need to be observed. Those ahead of it for what worked in keeping them going and those on the beginning of it for what we can do to help them grow through the rest of the curve.
New GM's are the lifeblood of PFS, more so then new players. I don't ever hear "Oh I wish I had less people wanting to GM in my area and more players!"
|
|
Using the stars on their profile to judge someones worth is silly. That is in part saying becuase I DMed more then you and so I declare your opinion is worthless. As long as someone has read the rules to PFS I have no problem with people putting their opinions. If someone says something I disagree with I try to explain why I disagree. How many stars next to their picture means nothing. I know a guy that did not have a computer and relied on the VL to fill in his online credits and did over 50 games to a random number. So according to your logic if he borrowed a computer and came onto the board his opinions matters less. Use logic to make your point not fallacies. Experience is helpful, but using it as an excuse to dismiss an opinion you disagree with does not discredit that opinion. It just makes you look like an idiot to people that know it is a fallacy and a jerk to the person you did it to.
|
|
more stars are not an indication of better GMing, I mean have you SEEN what Dragnmoon posts? ;)
HOWEVER they do represent how much experience you have GMing PFS, reading modules/scenarios, how familiar you are with types of encounters that appear in scenarios. Also, it shows at the very least, that people are willing to put up with your GMing, so you probably aren't the worst.
There are 4 star GMs that are bad, and 0 star GMs that are awesome. I don't believe there are any 5-stars that are bad, you have to be recommended by other GMs of high standing.
Eitherway, I have 3 stars, closing in on 4, and i don't think they mean anything, the 5th one carries weight, the other 4... they show that you are willing to GM to help the campaign, but otherwise.... they don't really count for much.