I feel responsible for provoking a dialogue on peer reviews of gamemasters at rolelaying game conventions. It appears to have struck something of a nerve, so here's my fuller take on it.
First of all I was delighted with a recent review from the respected 'EvilGaz'. As noted elsewhere a 7/10 is a very fine score from such an exacting and knoweldegable GM. More importantly to me EvilGaz was an excellent player in the game and really contributed to the session. I'll score him 8/10. He asked me if I'd like to see my review before he posted it. The implication was that he would have posted it whatever I thought of it, but it was nice of him to ask. In the end I was comfortable that he post it and would have felt a bit weedy saying 'no'. And it was from the Gazmeister and I rate him. So I just told him to post it up. Did his review teach me anything new about my GMing, the scenario, or the session dynamics? No. Did it tell me how much
he enjoyed the game? Yes. Inevitably this will often be the way with such reviews. In any case, I reckon 7/10 is a creditable 'pass', which means that I am now Smart Party accredited (Foundation 2nd class). ;-)
I'd have liked a fuller critique on the scenario and the superb character detail in the hands of the players to provoke intra-party conflict, the quality of the flavour text etc. We'll come back to quality of reviews later.
You see, I am just wary of self appointed amateur peer reviews. This holds true even if they come from experienced and competent amateurs with their hearts in the right place. Let me explain why.
One of the other scenes that I haunt is amateur dramatics, an activity that is more traditionally open to a number of types reviews. There is, of course, the response of the audience, informal feedback from acting peers, gushings from loved ones and the expected opening night review of the play in the local press. However, in my city there was, for a time, a further set of reviews that had to be endured. There was a local association that drew together amateur groups, put on occasional big productions, ran a one act play competition and sent their reviewers out to plays to critique and score them for the annual award ceremony. Goals were laudable: to encourage quality and raise standards amongst our amateur groups. Personally I don't feel the association achieved its goals. The reviews, bound by a code of conduct that was routinely ignored, were of variable quality, lacking a standards baseline,often limited in comprehension, and often served as unintended entertainment themselves. They were not, unfortunately, harmless. I had to witness at least one director fall apart at the narrow and spiteful critique. The play didn't deserve what she got.
Your asking people to pay, so you should be open to review and criticism. Agreed. However the association reviews almost never told us anything we could actually use for improvement, and often missed important points that we had already accounted for. In the end we stayed in the association, so that we didn't appear elitist or 'splitters' but allowed directors to opt their plays into the review/competition cycle. Not one did. Other than some smiles when cups were won, I really think the goals could have been worked towards in different ways.
[sidenote] Some Cons ask you to pay for RPG sessions. As long as I live and breathe and have influence on Furnace it will never do this. This is a subject for another post.[/sidenote]
So, there's my history and let's get back to the UK Con RPG scene. If a self appointed group, whoever they are I am not picking out the Smart party here, wish to see improved quality of convention RPG game sessions then that is also entirely laudable. Will short, unstructured, ad-hoc peer reviews of individual sessions make any difference? No. Is there the potential for scarce resource convention GMs to take exception when some peer know-it-all starts critiquing their sessions? Yes. Could some people with thinner skins stop running sessions after a bad review? It could happen. I could go on and I probably have for too long already.
This all comes across as very negative. I am a good GM with a lot of experience and still open to improve and learn. I don't mind having reviewers play in my games. Others might. So, lets end with another look at how we work on quality. Here's a couple of ideas:
1. It would be great to have a place where
guidance could be pulled from. One such place that has the potential is the recently created website for the afore mentioned
Smart Party. I hope that continues to grow with home grown wisdom also and becomes a source of links, a portal, to other places on the web where there is good guidance on GMing and running sessions. I'd certainly find that more useful than simply one group's view.
2.
Opt in. Rather than inflict reviews on unsuspecting grognards, create an association of learning where GMs can opt in to work on their GMing. Peer review members, run seminars at cons, give out badges, bring in the old masters, look beyond Savage ;-).
I'll draw a veil there and think some more about it.