Posted by Vice Admiral Linds B. (Gamemaster Director/Senior Gamemaster) in Proposal: An Alternate to Completing the GM Exam

Posted by Sam Haynes in Proposal: An Alternate to Completing the GM Exam

Posted by Luke Hung in Proposal: An Alternate to Completing the GM Exam
Posted by… suppressed (2) by the Post Ghost! 👻
<snip>

I’ll attempt to address the suggestions brought up while in-lining the sections for easier reference.

I think some clarity in this section would be useful - there’s no actual assignment of who grades the plan if the GMDir is not the Trainer. Perhaps something as simple as
-Nathan
A member of the GMD who is not the Trainer will receive the written sim plan and pass or reject it.

This is a good suggestion for clarity. The intent was that the GMDir or AGMDir could be facilitating as the Trainer and as the GMDir cannot evaluate a GMT review while being their GMM, so was the idea with this.

My only suggestion would be to perhaps consider making the Trainer the GMM for the Trainee’s first Sim? The Trainer would already be familiar with the Sim and have an established working relationship with the GMT. So maybe have a que of trainers as well as trainees. When one gets matched, the next is line is ready to go. I don’t know if that would be necessary, but it was a thought that popped in my head.

James

My main hesitation for this is that the appointed Trainer would then be indisposed during the rest of the GMT process. If each Trainee takes the maximum of 6 weeks to finish the alternative process, then during the appointed term that the Trainer follows they can only take on a maximum of 5 people. This does not account for any of the allowed breaks either. Similar to how the exam proctor doesn’t follow-up with being the GMM, I don’t think that having the Trainer do so is the best use of their time.

I really like this idea. I have wanted to GM for many years but have been intimidated by the current process. I learn best by actually doing a job instead of having it explained to me, so not having a visual sample of how to set up a sim is what has stopped me. I have plenty of ideas, but I don’t know how to set them up so they will work as a sim. I would be the first in line to be taught how to do it. In my head, it feels like it would look something like an outline with bullet points, but I’m sure there is more to it than that. Last week I even printed out the GM course to read through again to see if I could get myself psyched up to try and pass it in its current form. I’ll be following this thread to see how it all shakes out.

D Grisham…

I’m glad this idea appeals to you. This was exactly why I came up with this alternative because I know that exams as a format do not work for everyone.

Hi. I like this. There’s no one writing style, there’s no one roleplay style and there’s no one-size fit all GM style. I think having an option for people who either don’t need or whose creative process does not fit into the traditional GM exam path can really benefit from this. Are there people who would really like the traditional GM path? Yeah, but having another option for people is also really nice. I’ve been tempted by the idea of being a GM but I know that the original exam path just does not fit with my schedule nor my creative writing style. I also think I’d be happiest being what I guess I would call a substitute gm lol. Where I can hop in, run a small-scale sim in between a ship’s main sims. I think I’d also like to run some player-focused sims that utilize the backgrounds and histories of the ship’s cast, again on a smaller B-plot style scale. I think that kind of thing would suit me best.

Abigail G

That could be something you could potentially work alongside on with another GM. There have been plenty of instances where two GMs tag-team a sim together.

Fantastic idea! I agree with James too, so that you all wouldn’t need additional resources (i.e. GMM, trainer, trainee), it’ll just be the trainer/trainee.

-Ray

I do appreciate the thought of conserving resources and we’ll look into the feasibility of this. I replied above to James why I think this may not work, however I’m open to ideas on how to effectively utilize the Trainer’s time.

Thanks for the feedback so far everyone.

Matt

Some thoughts here ..

Yeah, totally has merit for this alternate plan. Thoughts on it ..

It may not hurt to have a series of ‘Be sure to consider’ items when doing up the sim plan to help guide one on things to be sure to include or consider.

I don’t see any reason why a person can’t work their sim plan prior to announcing their wish to do it and then be limited to 3-6 weeks to work it. Sometimes it can take 3 weeks to tweak it much less design it from scratch.

Pass/Fail on the submission to the GMDir .. I don’t like that. I’m more on the Pass or ‘Send back for Editing’ with proper comments on things to do to fix it to be ready. Really, if the person has worked on the sim plan with the proper criteria in mind, worked it over with another GM, there shouldn’t be any critical errors that can’t be done on a ‘let’s work on this part of the sim’ before getting it going.

Gene/Wookiee

Yes, I agree, I dont like the pass fail. I remember my GM exam and while I thought a couple of the corrections and deductions were not that important seeing where the examiner thought you didn’t make it was an important learning experience.

Ultimately the systems should be easier though. I know GM is very important, but we also are very short on those who do this.

Luke

I think the general idea, Gene, was to have the Trainer work with the trainee on their sim plan in those three weeks, working back and forth to edit and shape as things went. the pass/fail, ideally, wouldn’t even be a factor, unless said candidate couldn’t put in the time or effort in the intervening time. OR they lacked the ability to grasp the relevant concepts and techniques in that time. But you could, theoretically, keep trying to pound them into shape (figuratively speaking.)

There shouldn’t be just one Trainer, but a few to prevent bottle-necking. Ideally they would be volunteers, but also qualified. Full GM may not be enough. Some people are great in execution but suck at teaching. And also people may have different teaching and learning styles as well as mental-modeling for things like SIMs.

Some see a Sim as a story on rails, that must follow a linear progression. (Railroad. Pre-set story.) Some see it as a Simulation, with cause and effect, action and reaction. All they can do is set the stage and react, and see how the situation pans out. Some fall in between, with some events that are scripted, or set up ahead of time, but may never happen. (Node-based adventure design. Or the tentpole/milestone method.) And they can see branching possibilities and account for them ahead of time. (In terms of writing this would be Plotters vs Pantsers, vs Hybrid or somewhere in the middle.) And then you have to look at Methodical vs Intuitive. So you have a grid/matrix of possibilities.

Overall, this is a great idea. It opens up a nice avenue for prospective GMs and should, ideally, take out a lot of the anxiety and show new people the ropes. Direct mentorship. Tell, show, do.

I think with these considerations and those mentioned earlier in the thread, this is pretty robust. I personally don’t see any other major landmines to worry about at this time. If nobody else has any other issues, I don’t think it’s far off from a green light.

Sam H.

OOC: I had a bit of a rough week last week, so I’m going to leave this open for a few more days and give myself a chance to think through everyone’s responses and reply. Thanks for your patience!

~Linds

Dear all,

This idea, with allowing for option B, will likely help us recruit more GMs. It is a more hands-on approach than the exam-based route. I am glad the exam-based route still remains for those who wish to take that.

All the very best,

Ric