My WoTC Interview

[Saishu_Heiki]

My available hours are very odd between work and university, so even the possibility of pick-up games when I have time seems worth the price of admission to me.

The idea of a GM College could help alleviate the "what GM are we getting" issue a bit. If you can see the GM is Rank 3 Certified, then you know the experience is probably going to be better than an uncertified GM. I would want to do this just to ensure that my rules knowledge is up to par, for my own edification if nothing else.

 

[ShadowDenizen]

Great interview, Joe!!

Let me start by saying that I'm not a 4E "hater", but I'm not likely to upgrade in the immediate future.

That said, I will say that they do seem enthused about 4E, so points for that.

However, I was surprised they didn't have a more polished reponse to the questions about the DDI; they hadto know that was one of the questions that would be brought up, I would imagine.

And yet, the "launch" of 4E is mere weeks away, and Gleemax is still in the testing stages, and they haven't decided on the contect and pricing of DDI yet, even though it was touted as one of the linchpins of 4E?

 

[Kesh]

Great interview, Joe!!

Let me start by saying that I'm not a 4E "hater", but I'm not likely to upgrade in the immediate future.

That said, I will say that they do seem enthused about 4E, so points for that.

However, I was surprised they didn't have a more polished reponse to the questions about the DDI; they hadto know that was one of the questions that would be brought up, I would imagine.

And yet, the "launch" of 4E is mere weeks away, and Gleemax is still in the testing stages, and they haven't decided on the contect and pricing of DDI yet, even though it was touted as one of the linchpins of 4E?

Wizards' electronic ventures haven't exactly been the best I've seen. It's not their forte, so to speak.

 

[Spinachcat]

Ranking systems are lame and meaningless.

If a player is stupid and his character dies, then the GM is bad.
If a player attacks another PC, then the GM is bad.
If a player doesn't get the magic binkie, then the GM is bad.
If a player is not the total focus of the adventure, then the GM is bad.
If a player interprets the rules differently, then the GM is bad.

The bestest, most certifiediest GM evar is going to get bad marks from immature players. There is no way to determine the objective value of a GM. Did you have fun? is not objective, but it is all that really matters.

Everyone should be able to rank each other as fellow player and GM - BUT - the ranking should stay personal to their own files. That way when you GM, you know to PM your high ranked players and autoboot the bad ones. Also, as a player, you can see if some numbskull is in a game and you can avoid it.

BTW, you start penalizing good GMs with some idiot rankings and you will soon find a barren wasteland of wandering players. Instead, do this - reward GMs.

1) Every time a GM logs 20 player hours, give him a goodie. Like free digital minis. So if a GM runs 5 players for 4 hours he gets a goodie. Give him bigger goodies at 100 hours and 1000 hours. Make GMs want to run games online.

2) Give GMs incentives to play with noobs. Noobs mean teaching time. Noobs mean younger players. Neither are easy. Both are vital to WotC. Don't be a cheapskate. Reward the GMs for being D&D evangelists.

3) Give players the option to nominate the GM for "GM of the Month" and give the GM lots of kudos and goodies. Reward + Reward + Reward = lots of GMs = lots of happy players.

 

[Saishu_Heiki]

The two don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Allow for GMs to be certified by a WotC standardized system, while allowing people to have personal rankings and karma for people they play with.

Actually, looking at it it seems like a decent way to do it. Players would know that I, as a GM, know the rules well and I would know that G4m3rDud3 should not be allowed in my games anymore because he just wants to grief the other PCs.

 

[Cyronax]

Ranking systems are lame and meaningless.


3) Give players the option to nominate the GM for "GM of the Month" and give the GM lots of kudos and goodies. Reward + Reward + Reward = lots of GMs = lots of happy players.

Excellent. Capitalism and meritocracy all in one.

C.I.D.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

I disagree with the premise that ranking systems are meritless. That said, I think that one of the most important issues with respect to gaming in the long-term is Compatibility of Style. Ranking does not help you rate style or find games where you fit in. That tends to be rather self-selecting actually as like-minded individuals search out others. It is also not always a successful search for compatible gamers.