GM-review & Player rating

[Millfury]

As a long time DM my self for both home groups and society play, I would like to hear from the community of their thoughts on a rating system for gm's who donate their time to help our lovely hobbies run forward.

On many occasions I have played with excellent judges who adjudicate the game in a fun and wholesome manner which inspires creativity and brings the fantasy of role playing to life.
It would be nice to have a means of players to maybe up-vote dm's who contiue to perform and draw new players to the fold of role playing.

On the flip side i have watched new players be driven away by gms, who are petty, petulant, and/or exhibit some other forms of negative behavior which may erode the PFS experience.

5 options maybe

1. Role play
2. Clarity
3. Did your adventure have purpose?
4. where you treated respectfully by fellow players?
5. Did you have opportunities to contribute to party play?

while these may not be the best question selections, As a DM the opportunity for introspection into my own dm style and perceptions of the players could help to improve gaming?

[Sam Phelan]

Moved to Organized Play, as the content pertains mainly to PFS experience.

[GeoffA]

It’s not a horrible idea, but I think it may have some unintended consequences of encouraging the same experienced GMs to run games all the time. If a new GM, who is just learning the ropes, gets slammed with some critical reviews early on, that person may just get discouraged, decide they’re a bad GM. Maybe they just needed 10 or 20 games to get comfortable and they would have become a good GM eventually.

If this system existed, the PFS community would need to be very intentional about encouraging new GMs, saying “Look, people are giving you constructive criticism to help you get better. Don’t be discouraged. Learn from it and don’t take it as a personal attack.” Hopefully we are encouraging of new GMs anyway, but we would have to do that even more if players got to rate the GMs, because someone would write “stupid noob, doesn’t even know the rules for grappling” and someone would get upset and stop running games because of that.

[BigNorseWolf]

Its easier to make a bad impression than a good one , with this kind of rating system is no exception.

[Lady Ladile]

^Not to mention there's plenty of variation from one person to the next as to what makes a good or bad GM.

[andreww]

If layers get to rate me as a GM then I should get to rate them as a player. Did the get inviolved, try and push the game forward, interact with NPC's or did they sit there like a lump all game staring at their phones.

[GM Wageslave]

I want my players to have a most excellent roleplaying experience, but also *fun* at my tables.

At the end of every scenario I inquire as to whether that last part was correct. If it wasn't, I feel that's the most telling GM review I could get, and if it's the same players having the same concerns?

After steps have been taken to address said player concerns, any subsequent 'reviews' would be less than helpful -- the player is going to remember 'That table I didn't have a lot of fun at' versus "That awesome table where someone's never-really-used ability ended up saving the party's bacon'.

I think if there were a rating, there'd also be a rating for 'backtalk', 'snark', 'disruptive behaviour', 'exceptionally poor taste', etc, etc.

...this probably is not a good idea.

[Shivok]

Although this would be a great system in theory, the only fair way to implement it would be like a general online survey with a limited number of selections. Limited to only PFS players who have a game reported on the Paizo site. Kind of like a ratemyprofessors.com tab which would allow you to rate the GM in the reported games you've played in. Any player that rates the GM is clearly visible when rating to remove the anonymity in fairness to the GM and the GM should be able to 'rate my player' as well to keep it fair.

This would be a nightmare to implement, but also I can see the avalanche of complaints - harassment, favoritism, embarrassment and just plain 'he said she said' issues that would erupt from this.

The entire thing would go negative really quickly and then most folks would either not play/gm because the system was in place or would just stop reporting scenarios.

All in all it would be a disincentive to folks wanting to GM and overall a really bad idea to have a 'rate me Gm/player' site.

[TwilightKnight]

We also have bad players driving otherwise good GMs away. I don’t want a rating system. If you want a way to identify poor GM play so it can be corrected, we already have that. First, just express your concerns with the GM. The vast majority of our GMs are reasonable people and want to run a good game. As long as your feedback is respectful and constructive, most will respond appropriately. And when the GM is a jerk, simply report them to the event organizer or local VO who can address the issues with them. If the person sucks as a GM and refuses to get better, the organizer can stop using them or in the worst cases we can ban them. A rating system is unnecessary IMO.

[Alyss Glimmerthorn]

Even with the best of intentions there is too much scope for this to turn sour.

I wouldn't want to GM - especially a tricky scenario - thinking I was being judged for a future review.

[Upaynao]

This sounds like a PFS version of Yelp.

The amount of shenanigans around Yelp/nameyourfavoritereviewapp reviews, people holding proprietors hostage over reviews, etc, does not endear me to the idea of porting this over to our community, as well intentioned as the idea is.

[Hmm]

If there was a rating system, I would likely quit both GMing and playing society.

From the GM point of view:
I think a rating system though would cause me to feel that I was competing against my fellow GMs. Would we be comparing ratings? Would there be resentment between us? I'd rather just compete against myself. (I like to keep upping my game, learning ways to get better.)

And what would the ratings tell me? That some GMs are more popular than others? That someone else had a bad day? Would my friends give me good ratings that I failed to earn?

From a Player point of view:
If I rate a GM down, will they take that feedback poorly? Maybe they'll resent me and not want to GM for me anymore. If I give a GM a four star rating, will they pester me and demand that I upgrade it to a five if there were no problems?

[TriOmegaZero]

This is not something to be done with a vague rating system. This is something that needs to happy face to face with specific feedback to be acted upon.

[Zach Davis]

I feel like most society GMs really put forth an effort to provide a great game. Its one of the reasons I love playing PFS. I've certainly been on tables where I felt that didn't happen, but again its better to give that person direct, positive feedback in order to help them improve.

The first time I ran a game for Society also happened to be at the first Con I ever attended, and I was handed the scenario and asked to run it cold. I got some harsh feedback that discouraged me from GMing for a while after that. It was the positive experiences I had as a player that convinced me to give it another shot. I got to play at tables with some really great GMs who inspired me, gave me advice, and whom I constantly steal ideas from regularly in an effort to improve. I definitely feel like a rating system would create more situations like my first experience, and that this should be avoided at all costs.

[Azothath]

If a player feels a GM is good or bad, tell the GM after you get your chronicle. Most people like feedback but be constructive about it - there's too much harshness as is. Conventions tend to be more stressful for GMs as there's much to do, so consider the situation.
If you are going to judge someone's performance you should be smart about it - knowledgeable, specific, and constructive and expect your play style to receive the same treatment. Read GM101 and other notes on improving an RPG session.
PFS is never going to have a GM or Player rating system as it really falls under the OPF.

[JDDyslexia]

A rating system is far too passive-aggressive to foster good play and good GMing. If you have an issue with a GM or player, you bring it up to them. If you don't think that will work well, or if you are too embarrassed/shy/intimidated to do so, you can always go to your local Venture Officer and provide feedback to them.

[BigNorseWolf]

That DM I loved...

Encouraged everyone to role play
Let the adventure unfold at its own pace
didn't know the rules
acted the heck out of the characters
wasn't trying to kill us

That DM I hated...

Wouldn't let me use diplomacy without a 4 minute soliloquy
kept us playing 20 minutes into the next session
didn't let the game get bogged down in rules discussion
did annoying voices
didn't provide a challenge.

[Jeff Morse]

i got stuck on the word petty. "i didnt get to do that thing i always get to do, cause this GM said i couldnt, even though did it for 8 levels"

[Hmm]

^ This. That is exactly how differently the same GM can be viewed.

Hmm

[Ascalaphus]

Jeff Morse wrote:

i got stuck on the word petty. "i didnt get to do that thing i always get to do, cause this GM said i couldnt, even though did it for 8 levels"

I always find it difficult how to handle correcting someone who's doing something wrong. I don't like to be the wet blanket, but if you don't say anything, then you're effectively penalizing all the other people who do follow the rules.

Example: ranged attacks into melee. A new player was playing Enora, who has a crossbow. He was running a bit low on spells because he was using them for cool flavorful things instead of tightly rationed use to win encounters outright. So instead, he uses the crossbow. But he doesn't know about the -4 to hit for shooting into melee, and the +4 AC enemies get from soft cover if there's other people in the way, or about reloading crossbows. Meanwhile, I'm having a cold dice day with my kineticist that spent all his feats to have Precise Shot at level 1.

The GM isn't talking about the penalties to ranged attacks (might not realize Enora doesn't have precise shot). Should he say something? Should I say something? Or should we cut the new player some slack for this game? What about next game? What if I run into the player three levels later and he still doesn't know about precise shot and cover? Am I going to be the wet blanket GM?

These things are hard, and a rather arm's length, perhaps passive-aggressive rating system won't make it easier to do the right thing.

[Floppy125]

Hello All! I had a GenCon Experience I would say was sub par? I am a pretty forgivning person and undestand some GMs are there all day-but this event was the ...anyway.,... How do I leave review? The 1st GM had a website we could go to and leave a review. I cannot find that now.

[Squark]

Gms allowing you to leave a review is a personal choice. There's no formal system. You could try reaching out to the GM if Gencon provides you with such an avenue (I've never interacted with GenCon, but TabletopEvents which handles a number of midsized Midwestern Conventions has a contact GM option).

If there was a serious problem you could also reach out to one of the Organized Play Officers coordinating GenCon, but I must reiterate that this is only for a grave problem.

[Petronius]

Without further discussion of the merits/flaws of this particular idea, something a bit similar already exists in the Guides to Organized Play: both include a GM rubric. (PFS2 & SFS1, although the rubric is identical in both. It's not even a copy-paste; it's a single page that gets subbed into both of them behind the scenes.)

The rubric is only formally used to evaluate GMs who are trying to earn their 5th GM nova / glyph, which requires 150 GM table credits and some other things, including 3 formal peer reviews using the rubric.

It's a good starting place for any GMs to improve their game, though, and it could be helpful at any point in a GM's career (although it would not be appropriate to post rubric reviews publicly outside some larger official project to do so). The rubric was crafted so that it does not rest on style of play (like doing voices or not) but on more general ideals.

It also does not mean doing voices or other ways of adding flavor & making a memorable experience are ignored; far from it. One of the 5 areas is "The GM made efforts to make the game distinct and interesting" which accounts for ways the GM makes things vivid without telling them a specific way to do it.

Just figured it was worth a shout out that we do have a tool in this vein, even if it is not linked to public reviews. Cheers!

[Petronius]

Azothath wrote:

If a player feels a GM is good or bad, tell the GM after you get your chronicle. Most people like feedback but be constructive about it - there's too much harshness as is. Conventions tend to be more stressful for GMs as there's much to do, so consider the situation.

If you are going to judge someone's performance you should be smart about it - knowledgeable, specific, and constructive and expect your play style to receive the same treatment. Read GM101 and other notes on improving an RPG session.
PFS is never going to have a GM or Player rating system as it really falls under the OPF.

Unfortunately, the Organized Play Foundation no longer owns www.organizedplayfoundation.org since last fall. It's now a redirect to an online casino.

I believe the OPF is still working on their new website.

[Squark]

Link to the current Rubric

The current home of organized play is lorespire.paizo.com

[Petronius]

Squark wrote:

Link to the current Rubric

The current home of organized play is lorespire.paizo.com

I did include the links to both Guides with the rubric in context but I could have made them clearer.

We on the Guide Team generally want to nudge folks to link to subsections within the larger page rather than separate pages; context is useful, plus breadcrumbs / backlinks are not available on most sub-pages. (I would like to change that, but it's not the only thing on the wishlist.)

Also, Lorespire is just the SFS1 and PFS2 Guides plus the Venture-Officer handbook; it is not the new home of the OPF. Not trying to be a jerk about it, but I am told the distinction is important.

[bigrin42]

Floppy125 wrote:

Hello All! I had a GenCon Experience I would say was sub par? I am a pretty forgivning person and undestand some GMs are there all day-but this event was the ...anyway.,... How do I leave review? The 1st GM had a website we could go to and leave a review. I cannot find that now.

Incoming DM

... Never mind, you have DMs turned off. Please message me if you would like to talk. I am on the Organizing Committee for Gen Con 2024.

[Azothath]

Azothath wrote:

If a player feels a GM is good or bad, tell the GM after you get your chronicle. Most people like feedback but be constructive about it - there's too much harshness as is. Conventions tend to be more stressful for GMs as there's much to do, so consider the situation.

If you are going to judge someone's performance you should be smart about it - knowledgeable, specific, and constructive and expect your play style to receive the same treatment. Read GM101 and other notes on improving an RPG session.
PFS is never going to have a GM or Player rating system as it really falls under the {not online}OPF.

People pay for college (professor rating sites), meals & services(Yelp).

Games are free and all most people have is a GM name and PFS number.

If your motivated - talk to your GM after the game, local VC or convention organizer. That will have some impact. GMs need to talk to their organizer and sumbit a written report of the situation with details (see above). I don't want to get into more than that as it is going to vary by the situation and how people deal with a mismatch in expectations or conflict resolution. A whole 'nuther topic!

Nobody's gonna check a website for GMs at a Con, and locally you get to know your GMs. Just keep a list of whom to avoid. The other issue is people love to complain online (pseudo-anonymously, ask Lady Whistledown) and there's no way to confirm the stories or anecdotes from fiction. Do you really want to empower, participate, and act on rumor mills? In most societies it's poor form to act on rumor in social situations but some do.

Currently 'lodges' keep a paperwork trail of complaints. All they can do is not accept volunteers for conventions or local hosted venues. Banning someone from PFS would be rather extreme and with email sock puppets it is going to be hard to enforce.

TBH it's volunteer run and the process to talk to people about complaints and the target of said complaints is unprofessional and just done by your local VC & RVC. It is fair? well - they create a record after the fact. Everyone is just a volunteer and doing what they know/can and it's a mix of RL experience, politics, fandom, etc.

[Petronius]

Azothath wrote:

Currently 'lodges' keep a paperwork trail of complaints. All they can do is not accept volunteers for conventions or local hosted venues. Banning someone from PFS would be rather extreme and with email sock puppets it is going to be hard to enforce.

TBH it's volunteer run and the process to talk to people about complaints and the target of said complaints is unprofessional and just done by your local VC & RVC. It is fair? well - they create a record after the fact. Everyone is just a volunteer and doing what they know/can and it's a mix of RL experience, politics, fandom, etc.

I would just push back slightly on "unprofessional" in the sense that, while the process is run by volunteers, there is still a formal process for dealing with issues. It's fairly robust since a couple of years ago, there was a big conversation and project to improve the process.

Link to the relevant section in the venture officer handbook

[Cyrad]

I've had some genuinely horrible experiences at the table, and even I would not want this.

[Azothath]

Petronius wrote:

Azothath wrote:

Currently 'lodges' keep a paperwork trail of complaints. All they can do is not accept volunteers for conventions or local hosted venues. Banning someone from PFS would be rather extreme and with email sock puppets it is going to be hard to enforce.

TBH it's volunteer run and the process to talk to people about complaints and the target of said complaints is unprofessional and just done by your local VC & RVC. It is fair? well - they create a record after the fact. Everyone is just a volunteer and doing what they know/can and it's a mix of RL experience, politics, fandom, etc.

I would just push back slightly on "unprofessional" in the sense that, while the process is run by volunteers, there is still a formal process for dealing with issues. It's fairly robust since a couple of years ago, there was a big conversation and project to improve the process.

Link to the relevant section in the venture officer handbook

Read it, glad it has improved from my experience years ago.

[MadScientistWorking]

Petronius wrote:

Azothath wrote:

Currently 'lodges' keep a paperwork trail of complaints. All they can do is not accept volunteers for conventions or local hosted venues. Banning someone from PFS would be rather extreme and with email sock puppets it is going to be hard to enforce.

TBH it's volunteer run and the process to talk to people about complaints and the target of said complaints is unprofessional and just done by your local VC & RVC. It is fair? well - they create a record after the fact. Everyone is just a volunteer and doing what they know/can and it's a mix of RL experience, politics, fandom, etc.

I would just push back slightly on "unprofessional" in the sense that, while the process is run by volunteers, there is still a formal process for dealing with issues. It's fairly robust since a couple of years ago, there was a big conversation and project to improve the process.

Link to the relevant section in the venture officer handbook

I mean you have to remember the person in charge above the RVCs didn't particularly care about managing the communities. It was a stark contrast between how things were handled when Alex Spiedel became in charge.