Rating system [Archive] - Wizards Community

Rating system [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Dempster
02-23-08, 08:20 PM After looking through what people like and dislike about LG and other living campaigns it registered that good DM's and good mods seem to make all the difference in the world.

What do people think about having some sort of rating system for mods and DM's for living LFR.

I realizer that logistically it may be difficult but I think it would be valuable. If a judge is consistently giving players a bad experience it might be a good thing for con organizers to know.

Same applies to mods. If a writers mods are consistently deemed to be low quality it might be useful for administrators to know how players feel. With all the effort wizards is putting into 4th edition to make it more fun to play it would seem to me that this type of feedback would be a good thing in their eyes.

I have sort of focused on the negative here but of course good writers and judges could also be rewarded through a system like this.
Puggle Halfwine
02-24-08, 05:50 AM Something like this could be added to LFRWiki, but to be honest, I think... I think if it was for GMs it would cause more problems than it would solve. How would you feel if you saw you only had a single star out of five, along with loads of negative feedback?

Now, for modules, that's different, as long as such critiques were specifically aimed at the module and not the author, were written in a neutral tone and were "balanced and fair". Reviews should not reference specific NPCs, although referring to board events should be allowed, so long as references were not spoilers. Even things like, "Encounter Four was too deadly" shouldn't be permitted.

An example of what I feel would be a good module review would be something like this:

Name: COR9-01: Murder in Marner

Review: Murder in Marner is primarily an investigative module and with the right group is quite playable. However, the plot is rather convoluted and due to the high amount of roleplaying content combined with long, difficult combat encounters makes the module neigh impossible to complete in a four hour slot. Some encounters were difficult to "solve" without having a character with a high amount of exactly the right skill or feat, making continuing the module frustrating.

The combats were difficult, pointless and obviously placed in the module to increase the total ELs, leading to a somewhat unsatisfying experience all around. These problems are compounded by an AR with only disfavours and no access and below max XP/GP even if you complete everything. Given how easy it is to skip parts of the module if you were missing precisely the right skill, this often ends up in an AR with almost nothing on it. Avoid at a convention slot.

Rating:

Combat: 2/5
NPCs: 3/5
Story: 2/5
Originality: 4/5
Timeliness: 0/5
Overall Fun: 2/5
Keith53
02-24-08, 09:45 AM Remembering the old RPGA rating system, the difficulty is ones' play experience is driven by three factors: the module, the GM and the players. It is very difficult to separate how much each contributed to a specific play experience. I know that there were times when I thought the GM or the module was at fault for something I did not like, but later, after reading the module, I reversed my previous assessment. What validity did my original vote have? Our tastes differ which makes the ratings even more subjective. One person might say the combat/roleplaying/investigation was exhaustive, and the next say it was just right. They both could be right from their point of view. If one assembles many samples to assess a trend, over many tables of players and GMs, this module results in more/fewer fun play experiences that has some validity, but I don't expect single point of view reviews to be very useful.

Yes, having a good GM who is having a good day, and running a good module, are a great start to a fun experience. No disagreement.

Maybe a feedback system to the LFR Writing Directors as to specific weaknesses of a module, that might be useful instead of making public recommendations.

Keith Hoffman
LFR Co-Writing Director for Northcentral USA
Sieylianna
02-24-08, 10:07 AM Remembering the old RPGA rating system, the difficulty is ones' play experience is driven by three factors: the module, the GM and the players.

There was also the environment. In a typical convention setting with a lot of tables jammed into too small of room, it is difficult for the DM to do much more than shout. This means you lose voice nuances and players that can't hear miss information and their attention lags.

Ed
smerwin29
02-24-08, 10:19 AM To add to Keith's point, the only thing a player can truly "review" is their own play experience. Having been involved in the administration of two different campaign (LFR being the third), and having written adventures for twice that number, DM feedback on adventures is much more helpful and informed than player feedback--at least in terms of utility. That is not to say that player comments aren't sometimes useful. It's just more times than not, since the player hasn't read the adventure, the comments are either misplaced or totally invalid.

Rather than a review system, I hope that people will take the time to contact their regional administrators about good or bad play experiences. Players who have positive or negative comments about a particular game day or convention or DM can contact the POC or Event Admin. DMs who have positive or negative comments about adventures can contact the Writing Director. Direct communication about particular problems is much more effective and helpful than public comments. In fact, in my experience public comments generally only lead to added conflict rather than resolution.

A rating system can sometimes be useful if players have a choice of different adventures to play, and they want to play one that is highly rated (or avoid the less popular ones). And ratings, as a tool in that context, are fine. But we should not be expected to use such a subjective and ultimately unhelpful system as a mechanism to improve anything. Only specific and thoughtful commentary, devoid of rancor and grandstanding, can hope to help DMs and writers (and quite possibly even players) learn to be better at what they do.

Shawn
Global Admin - Living Forgotten Realms
Dempster
02-26-08, 03:34 PM Maybe a feedback system to the LFR Writing Directors as to specific weaknesses of a module, that might be useful instead of making public recommendations.

I like this idea. Taking comments out of public forum also stops the problem of unintentional spoilers.

I would not support a system where player comments would be public. I would however like to see a public feedback score something on a 1-10( worst to best) scale and a way for us to leave comments on specific mods for the authors/ witting managers. I guess you can do this now but it requires a lot of knowledge about the organization to find these peoples contact information and is pretty difficult for new players. Would it be possible to give each writer and admin a WOTC or RPGA email address that we could find online? It is true that different players like different aspects of role playing but I feel that the averages would tell you something. If a mod pulls an average score of 3 then something is likely wrong with the mod and I would like to be able to avoid it at a con.
LOE_Frey
02-26-08, 05:23 PM Honestly the one thing that is ratings based that I would prefer (aside from module ratings to help the writers finish better product) would be a rating of players by the GM. Not how did they do not or they are annoying. What should be more core to the origins of RPGA. How well did a player RP their character. I think players should be rewarded for good RP it makes the game much more fun, even to the point of a 1-10 rating or whatever... rating score X PC level = RP bonus XP. Just a thought would not be much but playing with good RP's is an experience in itself.
Gyro_LC
02-26-08, 07:18 PM The Nyrond/County of Urnst website have both module and GM ratings with private comments. They work just fine.

Click "Top Ratings" or "Scenarios."
County of Urnst (http://www.countyofurnst.com)
Nyrond (http://www.nyrond.org)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dempster 02-23-08, 08:20 PM	After looking through what people like and dislike about LG and other living campaigns it registered that good DM's and good mods seem to make all the difference in the world. What do people think about having some sort of rating system for mods and DM's for living LFR. I realizer that logistically it may be difficult but I think it would be valuable. If a judge is consistently giving players a bad experience it might be a good thing for con organizers to know. Same applies to mods. If a writers mods are consistently deemed to be low quality it might be useful for administrators to know how players feel. With all the effort wizards is putting into 4th edition to make it more fun to play it would seem to me that this type of feedback would be a good thing in their eyes. I have sort of focused on the negative here but of course good writers and judges could also be rewarded through a system like this.
Puggle Halfwine 02-24-08, 05:50 AM	Something like this could be added to LFRWiki, but to be honest, I think... I think if it was for GMs it would cause more problems than it would solve. How would you feel if you saw you only had a single star out of five, along with loads of negative feedback? Now, for modules, that's different, as long as such critiques were specifically aimed at the module and not the author, were written in a neutral tone and were "balanced and fair". Reviews should not reference specific NPCs, although referring to board events should be allowed, so long as references were not spoilers. Even things like, "Encounter Four was too deadly" shouldn't be permitted. An example of what I feel would be a good module review would be something like this: Name: COR9-01: Murder in Marner Review: Murder in Marner is primarily an investigative module and with the right group is quite playable. However, the plot is rather convoluted and due to the high amount of roleplaying content combined with long, difficult combat encounters makes the module neigh impossible to complete in a four hour slot. Some encounters were difficult to "solve" without having a character with a high amount of exactly the right skill or feat, making continuing the module frustrating. The combats were difficult, pointless and obviously placed in the module to increase the total ELs, leading to a somewhat unsatisfying experience all around. These problems are compounded by an AR with only disfavours and no access and below max XP/GP even if you complete everything. Given how easy it is to skip parts of the module if you were missing precisely the right skill, this often ends up in an AR with almost nothing on it. Avoid at a convention slot. Rating: Combat: 2/5 NPCs: 3/5 Story: 2/5 Originality: 4/5 Timeliness: 0/5 Overall Fun: 2/5
Keith53 02-24-08, 09:45 AM	Remembering the old RPGA rating system, the difficulty is ones' play experience is driven by three factors: the module, the GM and the players. It is very difficult to separate how much each contributed to a specific play experience. I know that there were times when I thought the GM or the module was at fault for something I did not like, but later, after reading the module, I reversed my previous assessment. What validity did my original vote have? Our tastes differ which makes the ratings even more subjective. One person might say the combat/roleplaying/investigation was exhaustive, and the next say it was just right. They both could be right from their point of view. If one assembles many samples to assess a trend, over many tables of players and GMs, this module results in more/fewer fun play experiences that has some validity, but I don't expect single point of view reviews to be very useful. Yes, having a good GM who is having a good day, and running a good module, are a great start to a fun experience. No disagreement. Maybe a feedback system to the LFR Writing Directors as to specific weaknesses of a module, that might be useful instead of making public recommendations. Keith Hoffman LFR Co-Writing Director for Northcentral USA
Sieylianna 02-24-08, 10:07 AM	Remembering the old RPGA rating system, the difficulty is ones' play experience is driven by three factors: the module, the GM and the players. There was also the environment. In a typical convention setting with a lot of tables jammed into too small of room, it is difficult for the DM to do much more than shout. This means you lose voice nuances and players that can't hear miss information and their attention lags. Ed
smerwin29 02-24-08, 10:19 AM	To add to Keith's point, the only thing a player can truly "review" is their own play experience. Having been involved in the administration of two different campaign (LFR being the third), and having written adventures for twice that number, DM feedback on adventures is much more helpful and informed than player feedback--at least in terms of utility. That is not to say that player comments aren't sometimes useful. It's just more times than not, since the player hasn't read the adventure, the comments are either misplaced or totally invalid. Rather than a review system, I hope that people will take the time to contact their regional administrators about good or bad play experiences. Players who have positive or negative comments about a particular game day or convention or DM can contact the POC or Event Admin. DMs who have positive or negative comments about adventures can contact the Writing Director. Direct communication about particular problems is much more effective and helpful than public comments. In fact, in my experience public comments generally only lead to added conflict rather than resolution. A rating system can sometimes be useful if players have a choice of different adventures to play, and they want to play one that is highly rated (or avoid the less popular ones). And ratings, as a tool in that context, are fine. But we should not be expected to use such a subjective and ultimately unhelpful system as a mechanism to improve anything. Only specific and thoughtful commentary, devoid of rancor and grandstanding, can hope to help DMs and writers (and quite possibly even players) learn to be better at what they do. Shawn Global Admin - Living Forgotten Realms
Dempster 02-26-08, 03:34 PM	Maybe a feedback system to the LFR Writing Directors as to specific weaknesses of a module, that might be useful instead of making public recommendations. I like this idea. Taking comments out of public forum also stops the problem of unintentional spoilers. I would not support a system where player comments would be public. I would however like to see a public feedback score something on a 1-10( worst to best) scale and a way for us to leave comments on specific mods for the authors/ witting managers. I guess you can do this now but it requires a lot of knowledge about the organization to find these peoples contact information and is pretty difficult for new players. Would it be possible to give each writer and admin a WOTC or RPGA email address that we could find online? It is true that different players like different aspects of role playing but I feel that the averages would tell you something. If a mod pulls an average score of 3 then something is likely wrong with the mod and I would like to be able to avoid it at a con.
LOE_Frey 02-26-08, 05:23 PM	Honestly the one thing that is ratings based that I would prefer (aside from module ratings to help the writers finish better product) would be a rating of players by the GM. Not how did they do not or they are annoying. What should be more core to the origins of RPGA. How well did a player RP their character. I think players should be rewarded for good RP it makes the game much more fun, even to the point of a 1-10 rating or whatever... rating score X PC level = RP bonus XP. Just a thought would not be much but playing with good RP's is an experience in itself.
Gyro_LC 02-26-08, 07:18 PM	The Nyrond/County of Urnst website have both module and GM ratings with private comments. They work just fine. Click "Top Ratings" or "Scenarios." County of Urnst (http://www.countyofurnst.com) Nyrond (http://www.nyrond.org)