After reading a thread in Article Comments on standards for Convention GMs, I wanted to bring the topic here.

Namely, should there be standards for convention games? If so, what should they be? Should convention GMs prove their knowledge before running a game?

Convention conventions?

Here is the article and comments in question that inspired this spin-off thread.

There are tons of delicate issues here, but sweeping them aside (and maybe calling them "suggested guidelines" instead of "standard" might make some more receptive to them), I would suggest a few:

No GMPCs

NPCs should not make plot decisions

Equal participation potential for all players (i.e. don't bring your gaming group buddies with their higher-level characters)

Which boils down to "Don't be a dick!" like all such laws.

-clash

Very true.  The problem, I think, is that most GMs who make an effort to prep and run a con game, aren't dicks and don't realize they might be being a dick.  I actually played a board game with a GM who received several complaints about his game.  I was surprised when I found out it was the same guy I had been playing with, because he was a nice guy, who caught on to the rules fast and was fun to play with.  Looking back, there could have been warning signs (that kind of nerdy overconfidence) but that's purely hindsight.  But this guy had delivered a pretty unfun session for several players, (super-powered NPC making all the decisions and basically the whole thing mimicked the opening quarter of a very well-known movie).  

What do we say to that guy next year?

Quote from: walkerpVery true.  The problem, I think, is that most GMs who make an effort to prep and run a con game, aren't dicks and don't realize they might be being a dick.  I actually played a board game with a GM who received several complaints about his game.  I was surprised when I found out it was the same guy I had been playing with, because he was a nice guy, who caught on to the rules fast and was fun to play with.  Looking back, there could have been warning signs (that kind of nerdy overconfidence) but that's purely hindsight.  But this guy had delivered a pretty unfun session for several players, (super-powered NPC making all the decisions and basically the whole thing mimicked the opening quarter of a very well-known movie).  

What do we say to that guy next year?

Tell him about the complaints you recieved, see what his response is. If he blows off the complaints, then let him know that you are reconsidering having him run a game at the convention. However, to give him the benefit of the doubt, check out the players who complained and make sure that they are not being dicks.

If you make it so GMs have to prove their skill or that they are qualified there will be far fewer con games. Not a good idea.

Quote from: McrowIf you make it so GMs have to prove their skill or that they are qualified there will be far fewer con games. Not a good idea.

I agree.  Unless it's at a huge con, the best way to deal with that sort of thing is word of mouth.

Gamer 1: I was thinking of getting into that game of X, run by Sadbad GM.

Gamer 2: "Oh, that guy?  Yeah, I played his game last year.  Don't do it, by all that is holy."

At my small local con (350-450 attendance) the con chairman tracks attendance to all events and records every comment received about a game.  He's been doing this for over a decade.  Space is at a premium for the RPG section so the problem people end up first on the cut list.

Quote from: ReimdallI agree.  Unless it's at a huge con, the best way to deal with that sort of thing is word of mouth.

Agreed.  Conventions are a very different animal when you're part of the sporadic (i.e. "once-a-year") community.  There's much more information than is available to folks who can only rely on the printed material, etc.  Within the community, I've found that word of mouth is a very powerful driver, both pushing people to flood certain games and to avoid certain others.

I don't really know what to do for folks without that connection:  I think that supporting walk-ins is a great goal, and I do think that convention-goers can become a touch cliquish.  The fact that they've got people to hang with can blind them to other folks who don't have the same resources.  Still ... you can't mandate that cliques look beyond their own borders.  Can't legislate human nature.  Best a con can do, I expect, is to have some common events that act as mixers.

I don't know that standards for GMs would really help people without the community connection.  I guess it would help them to avoid the real stinker-GMs, but it wouldn't help them to seek out the games run by superstars.  I'm not really sure what would.

Side-note:  If we're qualifying GMs for whether they're good enough to run a game at a con, can we also qualify players on whether they're good enough to play in one?  The players make just as big an impact on how the game turns out, IME.

Well I'm not thinking about this problem in terms of preventing players from joining a game with a crappy GM, but in terms of helping GMs improve so that there are fewer crappy games overall.  I think in most cases the poor GMing is a lack of experience or lack of exposure to better GMs.

I'd like to find some positive, productive method to helping GMs develop their skills.  I'm thinking some handy bullet point tips in the program, maybe a seminar by the Guest of Honour (if they are GMs) and/or well-known local GMs.  Another idea we want to implement is some kind of easy, automated (and optionally anonymous?) feedback for the players.  A lot of GMs (the good ones, of course) asked us for this anyways, but I think it would be good if we could have the capability on our site for players to provide feedback that the GMs could read later.

Quote from: TonyLBI don't really know what to do for folks without that connection:  I think that supporting walk-ins is a great goal, and I do think that convention-goers can become a touch cliquish.  The fact that they've got people to hang with can blind them to other folks who don't have the same resources.  Still ... you can't mandate that cliques look beyond their own borders.  Can't legislate human nature.

You can't mandate behavior, but you can encourage things.  I'm thinking that a convention (or fans at a convention) could set up a blog or wiki where people can comment on and/or rate different GM's games.  If you make it easy enough, people would be encouraged to use it.  A convention could even give an incentive to give such feedback after the con - a raffle, maybe, or credit for the next convention fee.

Quote from: walkerpNo GMPCs

NPCs should not make plot decisions

Equal participation potential for all players (i.e. don't bring your gaming group buddies with their higher-level characters)

Amen to all 3.  I'll add, try to give the players something to actually DO, preferably in the first few minutes of gaming.  I've seen several games where the PCs just flounder aimlessly around until they happen to stumble onto the "hook" for the adventure the GM has planned.  I've also seen others where the GM seemed more interested in showcasing his homebrew setting than actually running a game.  

Pete

If the governing bodies of the cons I go to insist on some sort of accreditation or proof of my capability, they know where they can shove it. I've been running games since before most of them were born.

-clash

Quote from: walkerpNo GMPCs

NPCs should not make plot decisions

Well, sometimes you have to have some GMPCs. I ran a game at Gencon for Bill and the adventure was a combat heavy action adventure. Only two players showed up, neither wanted to play fighter types. So, I played a tank character and tried to play down combat and get more intrigue. Now, my NPC character that traveled with the players never made decisions of where the party when or what they did and was basically sunk into the background unless he was needed or if the PC interacted with him.

Yes, that's the problem. There are always reasonable exceptions to what is generally considered "bad" GM'ing.  It's very hard to codify.