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

Posted by Richard A in Proposal: An Alternate to Completing the GM Exam

Posted by Vice Admiral Linds B. (Gamemaster Director/Senior Gamemaster) in Proposal: An Alternate to Completing the GM Exam
Posted by… suppressed (4) 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.

I’m good with that wording if it clarifies things better.

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.

Most of my sims factor in the actual characters and I often do a Plot A/Plot B type of story, so you are not limited to the kinds of stories you run, so long as the crew is enjoying it and the CO is on board. We do need emergency GMs for when a ship suddenly loses their GM, so that can be doable, but we do run into problems currently where a ship needs a long-term GM and can’t get one. But a short-term GM might actually help? I’m not sure yet.

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.

A basic info doc that runs in conjunction with the course could be doable. Do keep in mind that while you don’t have to take the exam, the course is required reading and a lot of that info is in the NEW course (the one on the GMD MOTD, not the one currently linked in the Academy). But what info isn’t included and might be crucial, we can make sure to include. I just don’t want it to be more things people have to read and process since the idea is for them to do. The Trainer will be someone who meets some minimum criteria, and if they prove to not be a competent teacher for this, we can replace them, just as we would for anything else.

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.

Agreed. Nothing stopping someone from getting a head start, so long as they understand that the Trainer may point out things they’ve forgotten that might make them have to unravel some of the plan and re-do it, but that is a part of the process.

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

Sam is right that the idea is that it is a back and forth. “Failing’ would really be the result of the trainee not meeting basic expectations of putting in the time and effort. And even if they ‘failed’ that attempt, there would just go to the back of the queue and wait their turn again if they wanted another crack at it, or had more space in their life to give the needed time and energy.

I could see developing a one-page (?) guide for the Trainer that gives them some reminders about getting to the GM’s style of sim quicker and how to turn that into a sim plan.

Matt is still on LOA, but I will talk to him when he is back and we will tweak the proposal. I would like to take that proposal and just do the trial right away, so we can see how it works out. From there we can make a formal proposal in Command that incorporates those learnings and see how people feel about it. Though I would also suggest we post a report about the outcome of the trial as well for reference.

~Linds

Very late to the party on this one but having just returned this is an amazingly positive way forward for the GMs and allows there to be more GMs, the previous method though having its own merits was a bit intimidating and this new method of hands-on will allow people to show their creative tendencies and develop them at the same time whilst providing a service, its a win-win.

Really positive stuff!

-Narwhal