Periodic Critiques

Shallown

First Post
Does anyone else do this. I use to do it every several months but have dropped back to every 6 months. I did one the last gaming session and it worked out great.

what it consist of is I have each player (Since I am GM) list 3 things the like about the game and 3 things they dislike. I ask for specific examples and this include in character out of character and meta events.

Then each player reads their list and we discuss it. It is a means for me to improve my skill and a chance for everyone to vent or discuss problems and suggest solutions.

Here are some from my session to give examples.

On the down side.

The character replacement system took a hit from several players. I basically allowed the players to choose a character from a pool of ready made ones if they died and chose not to come back. This was do to several reasons but the players thought it stunk so now I will do something else. I took player suggestions as well.

The amount of information I give for researching something was sometimes frustrating. Though action packed the present campaigns has a huge ongoing mystery to figure out. They think I am stonewalling them sometimes. I suggested they shouldn't take a no as defeat. I pointed out several times they gave up after not learning something after one No. So we agreed I would help a little more not by revealing things but being sensetive to this and maybe helping them along in minor ways.

On the upside.

They love my NPC's the seem alive and fun to just talk with even when it is trivial (in comparrison to the larger campaign plot)

My world is alive and keeps moving even when characters aren't there but the characters have a noticable impact on the world at times and they can form relationships that change/grow/die as time passes.

They see the amount of work I put into my game and appreciate it.

On the Fence. Both good and bad.

The combat encounters are often bizarre and strange. Not everyday monsters/people. This is good since it makes the world fantastical but bad if done to often which they feel I have lately.


Yeah I listed more good than bad but I like stroking my own ego.

So to answer my question does anyone else do this and if you don't would you consider it.

PS this only took about an hour and a half so it doesn't eat up great deal of time.

Later
 

log in or register to remove this ad


I like to get a sense of what players are interested in prior to even starting a campaign. For example, how much combat? How much NPC interaction? What kind of plot scope are they interested in?

Asking these questions prior to even beginning helps do two things. First, it helps me get the players interested and involved, and second it helps me see if there are players that might not fit with the rest of the group or are looking for something different than I am prepared to offer.

I also like the idea of periodic retooling to keep things fresh. I think constructive criticism is definitely a good thing.
 

I usually do the Q&A pre game as well but didn't with this group becuase they had never played before so didn't know what they would like and since we have been together like 3-4 years now I know what it is they want and though varied I can usually give everyone what they want. Unfortunately with the experience I have as GM (21 years) comes a certain amount of inflexibility , as in, their are things I don';t like to run and won't but for the most part this hasn't been a problem since 95% of their experience has been with me. Though I personally would love for them to game outside the group some since, to me, that does nothing but help.

later
 

i used the old critique rules from the 1ed DMG. they are under training. you give the character a score of 1 to 4 every time they gain xps.

as a player i critique my DM using our website. before and after each session. or by private email, face-to-face conversation, or phone call.

i see that as part of my duty to keep the game "real". yeah, i'm keeping it real.:D
 

Remove ads

Top