Page 1 of 1

Idea: Star Rating

PostPosted: 14 Mar 2015, 21:55
by Bluewolf
I know I don't have a very good track record here, which is exactly why I'm writing this (I only remembered this idea and logged in when I read something about Galicia). My idea was that there are two kinds of GMs: ones with star ratings and ones without. To be a star GM, the criteria is to be determined, but that generally means that they're a good GM. If someone isn't a star GM, that either means they're not as good of a GM or that they've never tried. Generally, "Star Games" (games with star GMs) would obviously be taken more seriously, including by the players. In contrast, "No-star Games" would often be taken much less seriously by the players and GM, and are much less of an obligation (and cared about much less). Obviously, it would be more likely one gets a star rating if they GM their no-star game well. However, this might not always be the case, and this is a risk that the players are willing to take by playing in an No-star Game. I think this would be a good thing for several reasons.

1. It gives new GM's (or notoriously unreliable ones) a chance to prove themselves.

2. It gives unreliable players or GMs a change to play or GM in a manner that is unlikely to severely affect other people if they end up not finishing the game, as well as busier players and GMs a chance to have a game with long deadlines. It gives them less pressure to finish a game if homework, other activities, and gradual loss of interest take their inevitable effect.

3. It gives reliable GMs and players more opportunities to play without having less reliable players and GMs ruin their games.

Please don't ignore this post due to my past reputation, instead embrace it in a new manner. I think this is a chance to enhance the site in many ways, creating higher-quality games for those that want them and low-quality games for those that don't care as much. Thank you.

Re: Idea: Star Rating

PostPosted: 14 Mar 2015, 23:20
by Bluewolf
Anyone think this is a good idea that could potentially be implemented?

Re: Idea: Star Rating

PostPosted: 15 Mar 2015, 01:23
by Morg
Considering the amount of work that a GM puts into a game to make it run well. I'm not sure setting up system where players can go into the game with the intention to take it lightly and easily set it aside and NMR at their own convenience is a good idea to implement into the PFDV forum.

The main site is capable of running far more games simultaneously than we are and NMRs by various players causes a great deal of frustration there. I doubt very many players choose their PFDV games based on whether or not they can freely abandon them whenever another pressing concern takes priority knowing that those priorities will indeed come up, rather than choosing them based on the appeal of that particular variant.

Considering all the frustration that takes place when playing with unreliable players, it can only be even more frustrating playing a game with an unreliable GM. We do have a process for previously unreliable GMs to reprove themselves. It is by proving that they can be a reliable player first, then we get them started with a simple PFDV before granting them free access to trickier stuff. Even the most experienced GMs aren't allowed to solo GM the most complicated games.

Diplonev, I am not saying this isn't a great idea based on your past. I do think you can be a great addition to the PFDV forum again, but I'd like to see you become a reliable player before you start trying to GM things. There are some GMs that will take account of a player's reliability before allowing them to play, and considering the work that they are putting into the game as GM it's understandable. There are also games and GMs that open it up to all comers.

Re: Idea: Star Rating

PostPosted: 15 Mar 2015, 01:32
by Bluewolf
Morg, thanks for your comment. I'm actually not interested in resuming my PlayDip career (I have realized that no matter what I say, homework, other activities, and gradual decline of interest will prevent me from ever becoming a committed player) but if there was a more lax method like this to play or GM, I would be more likely to do it. I think adding these games would be a benefit for players like me, who are interested in variants other than the standard (and not pay for premium), and it would be little to no detriment to more committed players. The more committed members would not need to put up with less committed players ruining their games, and can even play on occasion if a map grabs their interest, but not spend as much time or effort on that game as they normally would. Similarly, the less committed players would be able to play without fear of destroying someone else's game, or active players can join more games than they would otherwise have time for. It seems to me that a no-star game would generate less interest than a star game, but it also seems that there would be little to no cost, and if it fails, so be it.

Re: Idea: Star Rating

PostPosted: 15 Mar 2015, 20:44
by Pedros
I've promised Morg to stay out of this kind of discussion since my retirement, but I want to support strongly what he said. No GM wants players in their games who want to be able to NMR/surrender. In fact anybody who let it be known they wanted a lax approach would probably find it impossible to get into a game.