Wish their was a way to rank FG Users!

[X-baby longshot]

I really wish there was a ranking system provided by FG for its users, both GM's and Player's, in that players could grade a GM and GM’s could grade a player. It seems to me that when playing online there is an extreme lack of courtesy on both sides of the fence. I have now played in at least ten FG campaign’s, (well maybe campaign’s are not the right word as most don’t last long enough to truly be considers a campaign) in which I see multiple game sessions where player’s that have committed chose not to show, and GM’s that seem interested in playing just suddenly lose interest and stop Gaming. Players that don’t show up waste every one’s time by not showing up. The worse is by far the number of GM’s that give an excuse as to why they can’t play one day, followed by it will be a few weeks before I am able to return to this in which they never do! It would be really nice to see that data before picking a campaign to join as a player or as a GM to pick your players. GM’s will pick players that have proven to be reliable over ones that can’t be relied upon. Players won’t pick a GM’s that is unreliable. Giving player and GM’s the ability to review prior behavior prior to joining a game can only result in a better game experience.
I guess because it is online people feel like its ok not to show up or let anyone know you won’t be making a game. But the end result is wasting people’s time. If you’re a GM and decide to discontinue a campaign that ok, but don’t waste people time saying hey we will restart in a few weeks just to never show up. Weeks are time that those players could have spent looking for new campaign to join rather than waiting for you to return. If you’re a player and cant show up to a few game sessions let it be known ahead of time that way players and GM’s don’t find themselves waiting around a virtual table for you to show up. Way too many game sessions are canceled because a character with a critical role chooses not to show up, when it could have been planned for, i.e. the GM or another player could have played your character for you.
To end this I would like to say sorry for my rant. I have really enjoyed quite a few of the game sessions I have able to play in, but very disappointed in how most of those campaigns have ended.

[Mask_of_winter]

Ratings would encourage petty bickering and sour players and GMs slander.

My work around is to not start a campaign with strangers. I open with a series of one-shots in which I get to know the players and they get to know me. Once I feel there's chemistry and I found a good group I invite them for a campaign.

[damned]

Hey X-baby longshot sadly there is a lot less courtesy shown at times online. I cant offer excuses for other people - sometimes there are good reasons, sometimes there are reasons that cant be shared but in most cases better communication would leave everyone at least able to replan their time. Unfortunately a rating system would probably not work that well and can create further issues.
Try and play in a couple of sessions at FGDaze! and meet some more people and hopefully find yourself a more reliable group.

[damned]

And Mask_Of_Winter is a good guy! He runs some good fun sessions. Not usually D&D though he just ran one now - he mostly does Savage stuff.
I give him 4.5 stars!
If I gave him 5 he would get a big head.

[Thete]

Online gaming is also the only option for many who have hard time finding consistent time for gaming. But just disappearing is kinda lame. (Guilty of that once or twice) both times for me it was occasions when RL took over and I wasn't yet ready to admit to myself that I wasn't going to be able to make the next few sessions...so rather than a rating system, everyone increasing and encouraging out of session dialogs helps. When communication is high and easy, people are more likely to speak up about scheduling issues etc. and everyone ends up feeling more heard and respected.

[dulux-oz]

Although my group is very stable (we started around a table in RL) we've had a few "bad calls" on my part (as the GM) when starting out a campaign and such-like. One of the things I do is wait and make sure that I don't start a campaign until people are committed to gaming at the same time every fortnight - yes, we have to wait for a few weeks before we can get kicked-off, but my retention rate is a lot better because of it.

The other thing I do is I ask my Players at the end of every session what they liked, what they didn't, what we can do to make the game more fun for everyone, and if anyone is going to be away for the next session or two - and then I take that feedback into consideration when I'm planing the next session(s). I also make myself available via email and phone to discuss things with the Players between sessions - good if a Player has an issue with another and is shy about speaking up.

Yes, I've had to ask the odd Player to leave a game over the 35+ years of gaming (RL & FG) but I find that using this technique I don't have a lot of "unexplained dropouts" - I also only give people one chance to screw this up (emergencies not withstanding) and then I won't game with them again.

Cheers

[mghauber]

Agree with all of above.....another suggestion would be to stick with a few core people and build from there. Our current group is a good stable one, but for a while there were only three of us meeting around the virtual table. We chose to try some new systems...eg Savage Worlds (my fav), Role master, etc... while recruiting folks. It took a little while, but there are stable gamers who are looking for a stable group. We got to get familiar with some material that we may not have otherwise tried and had a lot of fun despite the lack of a campaign. Just trying to be optimistic for you. If you are free on Wed evenings around 8pm EST, there is always room around our virtual table and consider yourself invited. PM me if you're interested. See, that was easy.....

[Moon Wizard]

This is interesting, since it dovetails into a common feature request from the Steam crowd for matchmaking services on FG. I've always felt that throwing a random set of strangers into a RPG game is not the best way to have a good game experience. You sort of need to get to know each other over a few e-mails and scheduling threads in order to get the first sense of each other, then learn more at the first game. Anyway, just mentioning as I ponder these items for future planning.

This is something that happens in RL as well. I would occasionally drop into other RL games from time to time to scout for players for my main group. This was prior to moving and FG though. ;)

Regards,
JPG

[mghauber]

I've always felt that throwing a random set of strangers into a RPG game is not the best way to have a good game experience.

Depends on the random set of strangers I guess....but you are correct....

[JohnD]

Neverwinter Connections used to have a voting/rating system for MP games of NWN & NWN 2. It worked really well.

[dulux-oz]

I'm in two minds about this - on the one hand I feel people's pain in finding Players/GMs and then finding out if they're good/compatible (not necessarily the same thing) - (BTW I've got something comming out Soon(TM) which should help with this - I know, another teaser :) ). On the other hand I feel people's pain when an @sshole of a person drops you a bad rating because they don't like you as opposed to you doing something wrong. That's happened to me twice: once on eBay when I purchased something from the USA and it didn't arrive, so I got a refund and then the seller wrote a very nasty (anti-)recommendation claiming I'd ripped him off, etc. The second time was on these boards: one of the community members here gave me some negative reputation which I and some others considered unjustified after I wrote a reply to a post which this individual took as a personal attack/didn't like/whatever.

However, the reputation system here on the FG forums is (I consider) a good one to use as a model if we decide to go ahead with this idea, being a weighted system (ie the more rep you have the more your recommendations are worth).

The only trouble with any of these rep-type systems is they tend to favor established and/or people who play in/run a lot of different games. New people and those of us who run/play long-term stable games are at a diassadvantage: the new people because they don't have any rep because they are starting out, and the long-termers because they game with the same group and so don't have a chance to gain rep.

Something to consider if we go ahead.

Cheers

[Thete]

Maybe instead of votes, similar information could be gleaned from some kind of achievements system. Like badges for number of sessions played of a particular campaign (hard to track) or stats consecutive sessions played on the same night. Amount of hours online as player, amount online as GM etc

[dulux-oz]

Not a bad idea - it would require honesty from all involved, and is therefore open to abuse - but what system isn't? :)

[Ardem]

Badges is a good idea. having said this I must be one of the luckier GM, I have tended to attract good players. Even if they do not stick they all been nice about it. Never had a bad player or GM, and those that have been borderline, I just see it they were having a bad day and not usually like that.

[X-baby longshot]

Just to be clear, I am not talking about a system where you can go in type and leave dirty detail about another player or GM, after having a dispute, I don’t believe that would be productive or fair. I’m just talking about basic ranking like a 1-5 scale for some basic categories:
Shows up for games on time
Communicates effectively within the group
Plays well with others
Creativity with characters or games

I can see that if someone got a lot of negative ranks that it would kill their gaming experience on FG, the good news is they could always set up a new profile and try again. This might actually make people that want to use FG as their role play service become accountable to their community. Just like in real life if you flake out or cause trouble with in a group you would probably not receive another game invitation. But if that is the case, it’s their fault and is that the type of person you really want with in the gaming group? I’ve been role playing for a really long time and many a days I have hosted games myself. I still believe a ranking system would be more beneficial to this community and less negative, along with allowing players and GM’s alike to be able to hold each other accountable. In may I joined a new started AL group to try out FG, the game seemed to be going very well, then last game day the GM sent a ton of messages online within the forums stating the server was up and to join in, but he refused to join in to chat until everyone was on the server, which was weird because no one could join the supposed server. One of the other players opens his server up and everyone including the GM was able to join in to that. Still the GM didn’t join voice chat, which I thought was weird. Any rate that game night was canceled, no big deal the DM apologized and stated the next few weeks he would be unable to Game. A month later the game had not restarted, so after not filling my Wednesday night game itch in over a month, I finally asked if the game was going to restart or not. Thus the reason for most of this post, the GM finally responded back that he was no longer interested in the campaign and it would not restart, but why on earth did he have to wait for a player to ask the question. What he didn’t realize is that I had already review his profile and could see that at the same time he stop our campaign, and put everyone on the hook for continuing, he had started a new campaign for a different game on Thursday. I don’t believe he ever had intention of returning to the AL campaign, but instead of just telling the group that he flaked out and let everyone wait a month before ending the campaign, a campaign that seem everyone was enjoying. I believe that without a means to rank players this community, it will lose players that are interested but have similar experiences to mine, or you will see more people posting negatively commits on people’s forums.

[Baron28]

x-baby longshot, I have been on both sides of the fence as a player and a GM. As a GM, start small and build over time. I've been GMing old school 1e Dungeon Crawls converted to 5e for 2 groups. One group I'm very familiar with because I have gamed with them for the past 2 years now and we're all friends or related to someone in the group IFL. The other group I started right here. I've had a few drop out, but have managed to fill the openings with new players and I tip my hat to this group for putting up with me for the past 5 months as their GM. I try to stock my games with at least 6 players and will run a game with 4. As a player, I try to make as many games as I can because I know GMs put in a lot of time to prep for their games to make it fun for the players, but sometimes schedules conflict (spouses, kids, jobs, rl, etc.).

Last, when FG has a Con or a 1 shot game day, sign up for some games. It's a great way to meet people, learn new systems, and game.

Good luck with finding a game that suits your taste.

[VenomousFiligree]

Just to be clear, I am not talking about a system where you can go in type and leave dirty detail about another player or GM, after having a dispute, I don’t believe that would be productive or fair. I’m just talking about basic ranking like a 1-5 scale for some basic categories:
Shows up for games on time
Communicates effectively within the group
Plays well with others
Creativity with characters or games

I can see that if someone got a lot of negative ranks that it would kill their gaming experience on FG, the good news is they could always set up a new profile and try again. This might actually make people that want to use FG as their role play service become accountable to their community. Just like in real life if you flake out or cause trouble with in a group you would probably not receive another game invitation. But if that is the case, it’s their fault and is that the type of person you really want with in the gaming group? I’ve been role playing for a really long time and many a days I have hosted games myself. I still believe a ranking system would be more beneficial to this community and less negative, along with allowing players and GM’s alike to be able to hold each other accountable. In may I joined a new started AL group to try out FG, the game seemed to be going very well, then last game day the GM sent a ton of messages online within the forums stating the server was up and to join in, but he refused to join in to chat until everyone was on the server, which was weird because no one could join the supposed server. One of the other players opens his server up and everyone including the GM was able to join in to that. Still the GM didn’t join voice chat, which I thought was weird. Any rate that game night was canceled, no big deal the DM apologized and stated the next few weeks he would be unable to Game. A month later the game had not restarted, so after not filling my Wednesday night game itch in over a month, I finally asked if the game was going to restart or not. Thus the reason for most of this post, the GM finally responded back that he was no longer interested in the campaign and it would not restart, but why on earth did he have to wait for a player to ask the question. What he didn’t realize is that I had already review his profile and could see that at the same time he stop our campaign, and put everyone on the hook for continuing, he had started a new campaign for a different game on Thursday. I don’t believe he ever had intention of returning to the AL campaign, but instead of just telling the group that he flaked out and let everyone wait a month before ending the campaign, a campaign that seem everyone was enjoying. I believe that without a means to rank players this community, it will lose players that are interested but have similar experiences to mine, or you will see more people posting negatively commits on people’s forums.

I will hold up my hand and say that I am the GM in question and clarify some points.

I don't believe I ever stated that the AL game was a campaign, it was always intended as one shot play.
By 'voice chat' I assume you mean the hangout? When I realised there was a problem with FG most of my time was spent trying to fault find by restarting both FG and my machine many times. Joining the hangout would have been intermittent at best and I didn't see what use it would be at the time. I was trying to get FG functional.
Anyone can join a game nothing has to be set up. Many things can create issues with hosting a game, port forwarding, firewalls, software conflicts, etc.
With regards to Wednesdays, I have two daughter who are keen waterloo players, they have swimming and waterpolo training on Mondays, Wednesday, Fridays, some Saturdays, and Sundays. Up until recently they attended the same 1 1/2 slot, when the eldest moved up she now goes to a different slot, meaning 3 hours at the pool and return visit back home. Whereas my wife was happy to do a 1 1/2 slot at the pool, it was now a two parent event.
Last I looked I'm not in a Thursday campaign, I believe I played (not ran) a one shot a few weeks ago, however generally this is a difficult night for me to game on.
I agree I should have been more communicative and for this I have apologised in the original thread.

[X-baby longshot]

Venomous, this post is me asking for a means to rank GM's and players alike. It is in no way intended it to be an avenue to flame out particular people or seek a vendetta against you.
That said I would like to apologies, apparently I was incorrect in my perception of your character. I had assumed after review of your recent post history showing 27 posts regarding savage world since June 8th, (as I can’t see farther back then that) misled me to the perception that you had decided to continue gamming on Thursdays playing savage worlds but had not informed the group that you had decided to stop running your AL game until I had questioned your intent.
However I have not been able to see where this was listed as a one shot adventure. I believe it was advertised as a mini campaign and would continue until 5 mini adventures where completed.

https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?23805-Midweek-UK-Euro-DDEX2-1-City-of-Danger

I completely understand Family and other real life issues stop people from being able to engage upon their commitments online. I also absolutely believe that real life should come first, however it is also my belief that I’m obligated to keep others informed if I am unable to attend an obligation online thus no one will be kept waiting on me. While this seems to be common courtesy to me it has been mostly uncommonly observed by me while using FG. It seems to me that since I have started to play on FG many people tend to be very inconsiderate about these things online and tend not to communicate their lack of ability to attend their obligations. Thus why I believe that a ranking system would give a good reason for players and GM’s alike to either attend their commitments or communicate their lack of ability to do so in a way that is respectful of other peoples time.
So again I apologize if my post offended you in any way, as the intent of this post was not to call attention to you, but merely a suggestion of a means to correct an issue that I believe most GM’s and players Using FG has experienced, and possibly enhance every one’s gaming experience.

[VenomousFiligree]

For not wanting to flame out or seek a vendetta that last post seemed to be fixated on me:


In may I joined a new started AL group to try out FG, the game seemed to be going very well, then last game day the GM sent a ton of messages online within the forums stating the server was up and to join in, but he refused to join in to chat until everyone was on the server, which was weird because no one could join the supposed server. One of the other players opens his server up and everyone including the GM was able to join in to that. Still the GM didn’t join voice chat, which I thought was weird. Any rate that game night was canceled, no big deal the DM apologized and stated the next few weeks he would be unable to Game. A month later the game had not restarted, so after not filling my Wednesday night game itch in over a month, I finally asked if the game was going to restart or not. Thus the reason for most of this post, the GM finally responded back that he was no longer interested in the campaign and it would not restart, but why on earth did he have to wait for a player to ask the question. What he didn’t realize is that I had already review his profile and could see that at the same time he stop our campaign, and put everyone on the hook for continuing, he had started a new campaign for a different game on Thursday. I don’t believe he ever had intention of returning to the AL campaign, but instead of just telling the group that he flaked out and let everyone wait a month before ending the campaign, a campaign that seem everyone was enjoying.

The Savage Worlds game I tried to recruit for was a one shot (https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?24583-Savage-Worlds-One-Shot-Thursday-11-June-1900-GMT-1) - that means one session, no more. A (rare) Thursday evening became free on that day only, hence it was advertised for that day only (and incidentally it didn't run due to lack of players on the day).

When I advertised the City of Danger game, I was (mistakenly) led to believe it was one (four, maybe five hour) session of 5 mini adventures.


This adventure is broken up into five mini-adventures, each of which takes approximately one hour to complete.

It soon became apparent that it wasn't, as each mini adventure seemed to drag out to at least 2 hours. So I definitely did not class what I believed to be a single (albeit long) session, to be a campaign by any stretch of the imagination (and never detailed it as such).

I have apologised for my lack of communication in that game (in the original thread) and note your apology in this thread. I'll now bow out.

[WhtZombie]

And this is why the "rating" system will not work... Things happen beyond the control of each of us and could be reflected in the ratings from someone else that is having a bad hair day. Just keep a personal list of GM\Players you did not have a good experience with and go play in someone else's sandbox. In effect you will have a rating system but on a personal level and no affronts can be given or taken.

[X-baby longshot]

And this is why the "rating" system will not work... Things happen beyond the control of each of us and could be reflected in the ratings from someone else that is having a bad hair day. Just keep a personal list of GM\Players you did not have a good experience with and go play in someone else's sandbox. In effect you will have a rating system but on a personal level and no affronts can be given or taken.

I think the conversation here has been pretty civil for the most extend, people have had the opportunity to express their opinions and move forward. Reviewing my second comment, I could have left fewer facts about that particular occasion and voiced about other games in which I played and players decided not to show up and not to give notice of inability to do so. My prior posts were meant to be one example of how I believe a ranking system could be of a benefit to FG. However I really feel, and I believe I’m at fault for steering this topic off course, the true point of this topic was to discuss a ranking system and how it could benefit FG.

That said let’s get back on topic. I still believe a ranking system would be beneficial and lead to less expressions of negative opinions. Again if there was a ranking system 1-5 based on general categories such as Timeliness, Communication, group cohesion, and creativity you wouldn’t be reading negative comments and dirty remarks. You would be reading 1 not ranked well in a category or 5 is really good in a category, thus allowing players and GM's alike to express their opinions on each other without degrading to negative comments.

I can also see a point that inexperienced players might not get picked over experienced players, but isn’t that already the case. If a GM doesn’t want new players, he can simply ask for history of players game experiences and chose his players based on those results. Quite honestly it’s pretty easy to figure out at a table who has experience and who doesn’t. To that note as a GM I would probably however pick players that are new and had no ranking over players that had multiple low category scores, which in my opinion will make FG better as whole because people will know there’s a form of accountability for personal actions. I would also would not engage or commit my time to a GM who had low scores, because I feel my time would be spent better elsewhere. Again in my opinion I think 1-5 is better than this Player/GM sucks because of XYZ. I'm not asking for the ability to post a statement about players or GM's just a simple 1-5 for a few general categories so that when I select a player or GM, I can have an idea of what I’m committing my time to.

[Nickademus]

The purpose of this system is to weed out the bad players that could be a hindrance or detriment to the game. But in my experience, it is those bad players that don't bother adhering to the honor system or respect something like this and thus would get angry at being asked to leave a game or rated poorly on a game that just ended. Out anger or indignation, these bad players will use a system like this as a weapon and retaliate by giving the GM a poor rating (maybe even going so far as to get friends to lie and post bad ratings for the GM as well).

It would be nice to think that all people will remain civil with a tool like this, but since it is specifically targeting people that have flaws in the GM/player's perspective, the chances of that is low.

[Trenloe]

The purpose of this system is to weed out the bad players that could be a hindrance or detriment to the game. But in my experience, it is those bad players that don't bother adhering to the honor system or respect something like this and thus would get angry at being asked to leave a game or rated poorly on a game that just ended. Out anger or indignation, these bad players will use a system like this as a weapon and retaliate by giving the GM a poor rating (maybe even going so far as to get friends to lie and post bad ratings for the GM as well).

It would be nice to think that all people will remain civil with a tool like this, but since it is specifically targeting people that have flaws in the GM/player's perspective, the chances of that is low.
Yeah, I agree with this. Giving someone a bad rating, however warranted, could result in confrontation (in forum, PMs, etc.), tit-for-tat low ratings, etc., etc.. To the point that GMs may avoid the confrontation by not giving a bad score to the bad player. Or, a new player/GM to the community has a misunderstanding and ends up with an initial bad score and finds it hard to find games/players in future.

I can completely see where the OP is coming from and it's a nice idea in theory. But in practice this could be wrought with all sorts of issues, which have been mentioned above.

[jasonthelamb]

Maybe a simple "upvote" option that a player / GM can do, sort of like.... idk... reputation? :P

[jhall6766]

Im not a proponent for ranking/rating systems... I myself have several RL complications that effect the way I either run games or join games.. So as much as I try to keep consistent with in my games both played and gmed at times it is impossible.. AS for the reputation button I feel it is an adequate if not a well known tool within The Fg program..