(Turns out you can rename posts) New Name: What would you award a player/GM a metaphorical "Gold Star" for?
(Note: ideas that no longer apply have been deleted to clean it up.)
Hello fellow GMs and Players alike,
What are some categories that you would award players/GMs a metaphorical "Gold Star"? Much like a GM might award a player Inspiration for a great Roleplay moment, or a fellow player might transfer their earned inspiration to another player who figured out the solution to a problem the party has been struggling with?
For example, for GMs:
Plot Twist - Delivered a plot twist, scripted or improved, that made your jaw drop
Made me cry - (In a good way)
etc.
For Players:
Roleplay
Puzzle solving
Made me cry (In a good way)
etc.
I'm just throwing those out there as examples, I am still in the process of refining, hence this post. :-)
My goal is obviously not to be adversarial, but rather to create an algorithm that would be linked to a player/gm profile (possibly Discord so it would not be affiliated with any specific website or community) to help cultivate a healthy player/GM community.
I was inspired while going through the LFG/LFP topics and thought to myself, what if there was a "match making" system to help pair you up with a dynamic (or if you choose, uniform) party automatically based on your declared availability? Obviously this could be done without the "Gold Star" system and I'm currently working on it.
The "Gold Star" system would assist the "Match Maker" if a player/GM wants to filter what type of game they want to play in/run, for example if a player wanted to join a RP heavy session, they would indicate such and the "Match Maker" would find an open session sorted by the GM and Players with cumulative the highest RP Gold Stars.
Perhaps it would be better to add a "Report" function that allows players and GMs to report toxic behaviors, and if a user receives X amount they will get a warning/probation/ban?
This may be a bad idea all together, I guess I'm kinda thinking outload here.
What is the purpose of this rating system? Is it just a mental exercise?
I think that regardless, having a rating for a player, or a DM, as "poor," is unnecessarily adversarial. Same thing with pleasant vs. unpleasant. I'm also not sure if Rules Lawyer is the opposite of Flow Over Control.
I'm having trouble figuring out what the goal of all this is....
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Insofar as I think in terms of players or DMs being good or not so good, sliding scales of characteristics aren't really part of it. I might like Jeff as DM for his interesting NPCs and creative monsters he comes up with, and I might like Bobby as DM because he both knows the rules really well and is very good at making ad hoc rulings for situations the rules don't necessarily address, but I don't rate them on that (no "Jeff gets a 9 for character design" or "Bobby gets an 8 for rules expertise") and I don't really consider the same set of characteristics for every DM (I don't think of Jeff as a great DM with so-so rules knowledge or Bobby as a great DM who could be a little bit more creative with NPCs). It just doesn't work that way, there's no mental report card of sorts where everyone gets a grade in a dozen subjects and the GPA tells me how good they are as DM or player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I was just throwing those out there as examples, I am still in the process of refining, hence this post. :-) I may lean towards the Semantic Differential Scale method more because I agree, you could easily rephrase them like:
Unprepared - - - - Neutral - - - - Very Prepared
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10
My goal is obviously not to be, as you put it, adversarial, but rather to create an algorithm that would be linked to a player/gm profile to help cultivate a healthy player/GM community. I was inspired while going through the LFG/LFP topics and thought to myself, what if there was a "match making" system to help pair you up with a dynamic (or if you choose, uniform) party automatically based on your declarer availability? Obviously this could be done without the rating system and I'm currently working on it.
The rating system would assist the "Match Maker" if a player/GM wants to filter what type of game they want to run, for example if a player wanted to join a RP heavy session, they would indicate such and the "Match Maker" would find an open session sorted by the GM and Players with cumulative the highest RP Rating.
Perhaps it would be better to add a "Report" function that allows players and GMs to report toxic behaviors, and if a user receives X amount they will get a warning/probation/ban?
This may be a bad idea all together, I guess I'm kinda thinking outload here.
Again, thank you very much for your question to clarify, I hope you understand my vison a bit more now.
That's good to know, how would you feel about a sliding scale on topics like Roleplaying or Puzzle Solving? More towards looking at people's playstyle?
For example, I have a player who has been playing with me for years, I know they are a great role-player, so I would props them on that by rating them high on that scale. But that same player isn't particularly fond of puzzles, which is totally fine, but they obviously wouldn't be rated highly in that category?
Thank you again for your time and reply to my post.
That's good to know, how would you feel about a sliding scale on topics like Roleplaying or Puzzle Solving? More towards looking at people's playstyle?
For example, I have a player who has been playing with me for years, I know they are a great role-player, so I would props them on that by rating them high on that scale. But that same player isn't particularly fond of puzzles, which is totally fine, but they obviously wouldn't be rated highly in that category?
I wouldn't rate them in it at all, is what I'm saying. It wouldn't really affect how good a player I'd consider them to be, so there'd be no point.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm not sure how you would integrate this into an existing website like this...most of us don't know or play with each other in real life, except those who do via the Play by Post threads, and the community guidelines more or less prohibit targeting other users. I agree with Bio that any sort of "rating" system can be very adversarial if the wrong wording is used, and (more importantly, I think) will eventually come to be dominated by negative viewpoints and "review bombing". Negative feelings are often stronger than positive ones, and can quickly dominate a conversation as they are more motivating for people to complain (think of all the "ask for a manager" or "poor reviews on yelp" stories that are out there).
Plus, some people just don't like being "rated" and this may discourage up and coming DMs and players from playing or participating if they are afraid of that sort of judgement.
Good D&D is defined by the table, not by the larger population. If someone runs a RAW only Core +1 game (like the old AL rules), and their table has fun, then thats good D&D for that table. Likewise, combat heavy/light games and loose rules games are also fine if those tables have fun. I think trying to find a comprehensive set of rankings will invariably either leave out or penalize a set of "good for certain tables" but otherwise less popular styles.
Finally, as a DM who works a lot with new players, there is already an expectations gap when some players, who have been introduced to the game via the "professionals" (Critical Role, etc) are introduced to real games that don't have the same production values, voice talent, etc. Any ratings system has a chance to exacerbate that gap if otherwise good DMs are penalized by people with those expectations in a way that can drive others from the real game.
So I've refined my post based on the feedback I've gotten so far and explained a bit more of what this information is for.
It's not so much a "this is a good player/gm" thing as a "This is what this player/gm is like" in a way that can be numerically represented and used in a match making algorithm.
Perhaps I'll go away from the negative side all together and use a + only system, where unrated is average and everything above that only adds to their profile in the match making system?
I do not mean to violate community guidelines, I was thinking of using a Discord Addon so it wouldn't be affiliated with any specific community, just a tool to be used.
Everyone's replies have been very insightful and exactly the kind of feedback I am looking for. I by no means want to discourage up and coming players or GMs!
Would a props system work any better? Rather than rate users, what if you had the option to give something akin to a GM giving Inspiration for outstanding display of ____?
So I've refined my post based on the feedback I've gotten so far and explained a bit more of what this information is for.
It's not so much a "this is a good player/gm" thing as a "This is what this player/gm is like" in a way that can be numerically represented and used in a match making algorithm.
Perhaps I'll go away from the negative side all together and use a + only system, where unrated is average and everything above that only adds to their profile in the match making system?
I just don't think this is possible in a way that will be fair. There is no common ground of preferences and standards in the game to establish a numerical rating system that isn't arbitrary for each individual participant. Nor does it allow for any natural variance. If DM "Fred" is normally super prepared, but has a family emergency mid-week and has to wing it for the weekend game with brand new player "George", is George's "4/10" for preparation valid? How would George know otherwise? How about players "Harry" and "Ron" who have different expectations for how the rules will be applied? Does Harry's "8/10" given because he prefers a Rule of Cool approach more or less valid than Ron's "2/10" because Ron was expecting a completely RAW game experience?
A numberless, descriptive approach, or even a "pick a word" from a word cloud approach, would be just as indicative without resorting to a sheer numbers game.
(Turns out you can rename posts) New Name: What would you award a player/GM a metaphorical "Gold Star" for?
(Note: ideas that no longer apply have been deleted to clean it up.)
Hello fellow GMs and Players alike,
What are some categories that you would award players/GMs a metaphorical "Gold Star"? Much like a GM might award a player Inspiration for a great Roleplay moment, or a fellow player might transfer their earned inspiration to another player who figured out the solution to a problem the party has been struggling with?
For example, for GMs:
For Players:
I'm just throwing those out there as examples, I am still in the process of refining, hence this post. :-)
My goal is obviously not to be adversarial, but rather to create an algorithm that would be linked to a player/gm profile (possibly Discord so it would not be affiliated with any specific website or community) to help cultivate a healthy player/GM community.
I was inspired while going through the LFG/LFP topics and thought to myself, what if there was a "match making" system to help pair you up with a dynamic (or if you choose, uniform) party automatically based on your declared availability? Obviously this could be done without the "Gold Star" system and I'm currently working on it.
The "Gold Star" system would assist the "Match Maker" if a player/GM wants to filter what type of game they want to play in/run, for example if a player wanted to join a RP heavy session, they would indicate such and the "Match Maker" would find an open session sorted by the GM and Players with cumulative the highest RP Gold Stars.
Perhaps it would be better to add a "Report" function that allows players and GMs to report toxic behaviors, and if a user receives X amount they will get a warning/probation/ban?
This may be a bad idea all together, I guess I'm kinda thinking outload here.
Thank you all for your time and feedback!
What is the purpose of this rating system? Is it just a mental exercise?
I think that regardless, having a rating for a player, or a DM, as "poor," is unnecessarily adversarial. Same thing with pleasant vs. unpleasant. I'm also not sure if Rules Lawyer is the opposite of Flow Over Control.
I'm having trouble figuring out what the goal of all this is....
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Insofar as I think in terms of players or DMs being good or not so good, sliding scales of characteristics aren't really part of it. I might like Jeff as DM for his interesting NPCs and creative monsters he comes up with, and I might like Bobby as DM because he both knows the rules really well and is very good at making ad hoc rulings for situations the rules don't necessarily address, but I don't rate them on that (no "Jeff gets a 9 for character design" or "Bobby gets an 8 for rules expertise") and I don't really consider the same set of characteristics for every DM (I don't think of Jeff as a great DM with so-so rules knowledge or Bobby as a great DM who could be a little bit more creative with NPCs). It just doesn't work that way, there's no mental report card of sorts where everyone gets a grade in a dozen subjects and the GPA tells me how good they are as DM or player.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
Thank you for your reply BioWizard!
I was just throwing those out there as examples, I am still in the process of refining, hence this post. :-) I may lean towards the Semantic Differential Scale method more because I agree, you could easily rephrase them like:
Unprepared - - - - Neutral - - - - Very Prepared
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10
My goal is obviously not to be, as you put it, adversarial, but rather to create an algorithm that would be linked to a player/gm profile to help cultivate a healthy player/GM community. I was inspired while going through the LFG/LFP topics and thought to myself, what if there was a "match making" system to help pair you up with a dynamic (or if you choose, uniform) party automatically based on your declarer availability? Obviously this could be done without the rating system and I'm currently working on it.
The rating system would assist the "Match Maker" if a player/GM wants to filter what type of game they want to run, for example if a player wanted to join a RP heavy session, they would indicate such and the "Match Maker" would find an open session sorted by the GM and Players with cumulative the highest RP Rating.
Perhaps it would be better to add a "Report" function that allows players and GMs to report toxic behaviors, and if a user receives X amount they will get a warning/probation/ban?
This may be a bad idea all together, I guess I'm kinda thinking outload here.
Again, thank you very much for your question to clarify, I hope you understand my vison a bit more now.
Thank you for your reply Pangurjan!
That's good to know, how would you feel about a sliding scale on topics like Roleplaying or Puzzle Solving? More towards looking at people's playstyle?
For example, I have a player who has been playing with me for years, I know they are a great role-player, so I would props them on that by rating them high on that scale. But that same player isn't particularly fond of puzzles, which is totally fine, but they obviously wouldn't be rated highly in that category?
Thank you again for your time and reply to my post.
I wouldn't rate them in it at all, is what I'm saying. It wouldn't really affect how good a player I'd consider them to be, so there'd be no point.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I'm not sure how you would integrate this into an existing website like this...most of us don't know or play with each other in real life, except those who do via the Play by Post threads, and the community guidelines more or less prohibit targeting other users. I agree with Bio that any sort of "rating" system can be very adversarial if the wrong wording is used, and (more importantly, I think) will eventually come to be dominated by negative viewpoints and "review bombing". Negative feelings are often stronger than positive ones, and can quickly dominate a conversation as they are more motivating for people to complain (think of all the "ask for a manager" or "poor reviews on yelp" stories that are out there).
Plus, some people just don't like being "rated" and this may discourage up and coming DMs and players from playing or participating if they are afraid of that sort of judgement.
Good D&D is defined by the table, not by the larger population. If someone runs a RAW only Core +1 game (like the old AL rules), and their table has fun, then thats good D&D for that table. Likewise, combat heavy/light games and loose rules games are also fine if those tables have fun. I think trying to find a comprehensive set of rankings will invariably either leave out or penalize a set of "good for certain tables" but otherwise less popular styles.
Finally, as a DM who works a lot with new players, there is already an expectations gap when some players, who have been introduced to the game via the "professionals" (Critical Role, etc) are introduced to real games that don't have the same production values, voice talent, etc. Any ratings system has a chance to exacerbate that gap if otherwise good DMs are penalized by people with those expectations in a way that can drive others from the real game.
So I've refined my post based on the feedback I've gotten so far and explained a bit more of what this information is for.
It's not so much a "this is a good player/gm" thing as a "This is what this player/gm is like" in a way that can be numerically represented and used in a match making algorithm.
Perhaps I'll go away from the negative side all together and use a + only system, where unrated is average and everything above that only adds to their profile in the match making system?
Thank you for your reply Iconarising!
I do not mean to violate community guidelines, I was thinking of using a Discord Addon so it wouldn't be affiliated with any specific community, just a tool to be used.
Everyone's replies have been very insightful and exactly the kind of feedback I am looking for. I by no means want to discourage up and coming players or GMs!
Would a props system work any better? Rather than rate users, what if you had the option to give something akin to a GM giving Inspiration for outstanding display of ____?
I just don't think this is possible in a way that will be fair. There is no common ground of preferences and standards in the game to establish a numerical rating system that isn't arbitrary for each individual participant. Nor does it allow for any natural variance. If DM "Fred" is normally super prepared, but has a family emergency mid-week and has to wing it for the weekend game with brand new player "George", is George's "4/10" for preparation valid? How would George know otherwise? How about players "Harry" and "Ron" who have different expectations for how the rules will be applied? Does Harry's "8/10" given because he prefers a Rule of Cool approach more or less valid than Ron's "2/10" because Ron was expecting a completely RAW game experience?
A numberless, descriptive approach, or even a "pick a word" from a word cloud approach, would be just as indicative without resorting to a sheer numbers game.
I like it Iconarising!
Thank you very much for your input! I agree and I'm going to drop the number system.
What do you think of the props or "Gold Star" system that my edited post describes?