GM Turnover Score

So I know in the past the idea of GM reviews has been turned down because of worries of review bombing and disgruntled players which is understandable. However the current system doesn't really have a way to flag bad GMs other than by community word. So what I'm suggestion is some sort of score, or rating based on turnover rate. Essentially if a GM has a statistically significant number of players coming and going out of their games Roll20 would offer a way for players to see that before joining that GM's games.  This could be done as some sort of rating, score, or number. It could also simply be an on/off warning message where you only see it if the system has determined it necessary. The system could also potentially be weighted based on how long players stick with a GM. Obviously some people leaving after 6 months of play probably shouldn't be weighted as heavily as a large number of players all leaving within their first month. The only thing that would need to be watched would be preventing sock puppets from inflating a GM's rating with a bunch of fake games. Though I imagine this could be caught pretty easily.

I want to be clear here that there would be no player rating system; no one would be ascribing a rating to anyone else. A player's only impact on the system would be by rather they stayed with the game, or left it. That's it. No reviews, nothing. Just raw math. This isn't the type of thing that can be easily abused by players. It doesn't even have to be a number it could just be a simple warning message "Our system sees that a significantly larger number of players than average have left this GM's games within the first 2-3 months of play." I think this is especially important as any LFG database will naturally have a disproportionately large number of games represented by toxic GMs. What do I mean by this? Good GMs tend to keep their players, and their games naturally stay full. There might be an occasional drop out, but their tables end up stable. Toxic GMs on the other hand usually end up with a revolving door of players. This means that their games are much more likely to remain constantly up on the LFG listings. Over time this skews the system, and the percentage of toxic tables in the database becomes larger than it should be. What might have started off as 5-10% of LFG listings could easily grow to 30-40%, or higher. This isn't a problem exclusive to Roll20. It's just a natural result of any LFG system in our hobby. It's why you need some sort of measure to allow players to make an informed judgement beyond word of mouth. Especially when many of those players are new, and could be turned off of the hobby permanently by one bad experience. Lastly I want to address the second part of what you said. The problem with reporting toxic users to the Devs is that it lacks nuance, and isn't always necessary. Does a GM who consistently murders their groups over and over again for fun deserve a report and suspension? Probably not. Do players deserve to know that 80% of the people who join that GM's games drop out within the first month or two? Probably so.

I suppose there is no perfect system, but wouldn't this risk punishing a GM for behavior outside their control?  I have only recruited once through Roll20.  Out of 3 players that responded to the lfg post, one never actually joined the game, so that is probably outside the system you are proposing.  The next joined, but never made a character, didn't respond to private messages, and I eventually kicked that player.  Would that reflect negatively on me in your proposed system?  The third player played for a couple months, but then saw a lfg post for an rpg they hadn't tried and wanted to give it a go.  Since it overlapped the time I ran my game, that meant dropping out of my game.  Would that reflect negatively on me in your proposed system? Also, I expect the system would have to somehow ignore one shot games, since those might be recycled with 100% player change per session. For players that use the lfg system a lot, I expect some sort of metric to judge games and the people running them would be nice, so I'm not against the idea.  I just want to make sure that it is put forward that even just "how often players leave a game" might not be totally fair either.

How would this reflect living world games, specific system communities, specific game play style communities? My community has over 700 members but not to much activity beyond a game LFG posting or occasional question/comment posted and replied to. How would your suggested method work for that?

It would also be skewed by the sheer volume of 'test' games out there. I have several that I regularly join my second account to, only to then have it leave without ever really 'playing' a game... would that make me appear as a bad DM? Certain Scriptomancers and their ilk also join multiple games a week out of the goodness of their matrix to solve user problems before leaving/being booted never to return... are those DMs bad for needing help?! The above is all devils advocate of course, I personally would like to see some kind of perfect system whereby people can game in safety and with confidence and this is definitely the closest I've seen to a solution, with some refinement I could even be persuaded to drop a vote here too ;)

@Kraynic I think the basic idea of the system would be that you would look for statistically significant outliers. The goal isn't to reflect poorly on every GM who loses a player, but rather to pick up on if a GM is losing allot more players than would be expected. You could design the algorithm to be particularly lenient as well. Better to let a few bad applies slip through the cracks, than to hurt someone who isn't to blame. Keep in mind the system would measure rather or not someone left the game so if they never accepted an invite it wouldn't kick in. Similarly you could require a minimum number of hours played in a game for someone to count against a GM. I think when addressing some of these issues as well you could draw a distinction between a GM kicking someone, and someone leaving. Similarly you can weigh how long someone stays with the game in the algorithm. Lots of players all leaving fairly shortly after joining should be weighed more heavily than players leaving after they played for 6+ months. You might not even count players leaving at all after enough time has elapsed. You can also weigh the amount of time the player played versus when they left as well if you so desired. There's allot of dials that could be adjusted. To be clear I don't think this system would be perfect. Every system has flaws, and some of them would need to be addressed before and after release. I think it's more of a question of rather or not it would be a big enough improvement on the current system to warrant the dev team's time. Currently as a player scanning through LFG you're at the mercy of lady luck, and as I mentioned in an earlier post those odds become inevitably skewed just because of the nature of our hobby. @Pat S. As I mentioned above you could take play time in the game into account. I guess the system wouldn't particularly address games that take place mostly on the forums through text. I certainly think the algorithm could be designed in such a way that those games would at the very least be seen neutrally if nothing else. Same with large community groups and the like. EDIT: @Ziechael I think some of the things I mentioned above could address those sorts of issues. Obviously there will always be some edge case scenarios.

How would this system deal with GMs that run mostly one-shots or short campaigns?

Beyond the problems inherent with such a system in regards to pickup games, one shots and just plain difficulty of putting together a good group over the internet, this is still a rating system and will be perceived as such. There will also be ways in which it can be abused or "gamed" and people will do so.

I'm firmly against any sort of GM or Player rating system, but something like a player join list per game could meet this need. What I'm imagining is just a side bar on a game page that says "Player has joined" and "Player has left the game". It would give you a basic look at how much turnover a game has. And if it's a one-shot game, it'd be understandable for a game to have a lot. You'd have to copy the list over if a game gets copied to avoid GM abuse.

I don’t want to have my GM rating penalized for firing a flaky player.

What's to stop someone from running a game with multiple accounts and artificially inflating their score?

What about new GMs that struggle to learn how to GM and their players just bail due to the player's over inflated expectations? Any type of rating will stigmatise new GMs, who are learning their skills, just by lumping them with toxic GMs in the ratings.

To respond to a few of the questions. I think one shot campaigns are definitely a concern. There are some ways you can deal with it like not flagging clearing out a one shot campaign. Another option again would be distinguishing between kicking someone and someone leaving. So if you cleaned out a one shot campaign it wouldn't affect you. Same with kicking out a problem player. I think @Spren's suggestion might be a good compromise as well. The main idea is to give players the ability to make a more informed decision. Players deserve some sort of forewarning as to what they are getting into. @B Simon Smith I commented on this earlier, but there are ways to catch someone sock puppetting, and a few ways to mitigate abuse. No system is full proof obviously, but you can implement some basic protections. @Pat S. There certainly is a learning curve to being a new GM. Which is why I was mentioning the possibility of an on/off flag for statistically significant outliers. I think @Spren's suggestion could help with this as well. Keep in mind under the current system many new players are turned off the hobby because they end up with toxic GMs in their first game. We need some sort of better system than what we have currently.

Nothing would prevent those toxic GM's from creating a new account and start over with fresh reputation when they see that their rating starts to reflect the reality. So while I understand the logic behind the proposal, I agree with everyone who's said that any rating system is prone to abuse.

@Jonkka If you've ever made a game on Roll20 you know how much time it takes to make a game, handouts, maps, etc. Making the life of toxic GMs more difficult certainly isn't necessarily a bad thing. Just because some people get away with crimes doesn't mean we shouldn't have law enforcement. I think it would also help some toxic GMs realize their behavior is toxic which doesn't always happen. Giving an opportunity for them to reform. Again the idea isn't to 100% solve the problem of toxic GMs. Rather it's to flag those who stand out egregiously. No system is going to be able to prevent every toxic GM from making games, but currently there aren't really any checks unless they do something bad enough to be worthy of a ban. Even then allot of times it can be difficult to hand out a ban if the toxic behavior happened over voice, and all you have is two people's words against each other. You also get back to the problem of being able to just create a new free account and start over again. I'll reiterate once more since this seems to be a point of confusion. You can design the system to be very generous so it only flags the worst of the worst cases. There are allot of dials that can be controlled. Even if we just used @Spren's suggestion that would be a huge improvement IMHO. Any additional information you can feed to players so that they can make a more informed decision would be wonderful. It really saddens my heart when I see new players being turned off of the hobby by bad experiences that could have been mitigated, or prevented.

@Rainbow Nowhere was I advocating banning any GM at all. I was advocating for a warning, or at least the presence of information so players can see if a GM has an unusually high turnover rate. If a GM has had 30 players and 28 of them left in the first two to three months of play I don't think it's unreasonable to allow potential new players to be aware of that. I'm not advocating banning any GM for players leaving their games I'm not sure how you got that idea. In fact if anything I'm advocating for the opposite. Under the current system your only reprise to a toxic GM is to report them to the Roll20 staff. Which is often times too extreme of a response. Someone not being the best GM doesn't mean they deserve a suspension or ban by any means. As someone who mostly GMs I can say I wouldn't be embarrassed if players were able to see the number of people who came in and out of my games as my groups tend to end up pretty stable. Even with completely fresh tables I don't have any sort of issues with stabilizing, and I believe that is the case for most groups. Most tables are pretty stable barring the occasional exchange or drop out. I don't think there's anything wrong with presenting players with more information so they can make a more informed decision about what game they wish to join. I think @Spren's suggestion was particularly good in this regard. Give players more tools for finding the game that's right for them, and at the same time make it easier to avoid toxic GMs.

I'm not against the idea. Just the side effect it might cause of preconceptions of a GM before you even talk to them. Causing who you might have given a chance and learned to like, to turn into going in wary, and looking for reasons of your 'suspicion', as the GM score was low. Luckily (I suppose), I myself don't have any LFG type setups. My group has been the same people I personally know, for the years I've been on here.  Now don't take me saying that as a brag, more that hopefully my opinion doesn't 'have a horse in this race' to skew it. Me and my friends have had this discussion before outside roll20, but it can be applied: What makes a 'Good DM/GM'? A high turn over might not indicate it. They might be an AMAZING GM that fit to only one type of playstyle and people join to find the story/acting/characters are amazing, but the GM's preferred play style when it comes to some mechanic..not so much to them. For example (lets argue I am the best GM ever. I'm not...at all..not even close, not even of the 3 GMs I know, but for arguments sake). And I have a LFG up. I love and insist on tracking everything: Rations, water, weight, sleep in hours, mount's feed in pounds, where you left mounts when you went inside cave, what might attack mounts while in cave, (And so on). I could wager 3/4 of players would leave going "Jesus Christ during downtime its like an 'Excel Inventory Simulator' tabletop game." And some select deranged few would go "This is amazing, no GM I had before got this passionate about us having to pre-plan and think ahead..it adds so much depth and risk to our travels. Spending 20 minutes a game thinking hard about what gear to move to my mount before going in the cave make me really appreciate having to think about what I really might need in there." (There are the odd ones like me that like that...we are a strange breed..lol). I might not ever find the ones that like it, if many that did not joined and left...scaring off the others due to 'minunderstanding why the others left'. It also gives new (fresh to tabletop) players no way to know if its a "Bad" GM, or just an inexperienced one. Which they might be ok with or even prefer, since they are also. Maybe they dont mind a fresh GM, as they are fresh and dont want to feel like the 'new dumb guy'. They have no way to know if the high turnover is from him being an amazing veteran GM that runs high volume games trying to accommodate everyone to get a chance and/or runs adventure path games, if its because hes a 'newb' GM and veteran players wanted more experienced, or if hes just a 'dick' GM that no one likes, new or veteran. My point is, and maybe its the old school 'meet and greet' in me. The only true way to know if you would enjoy the game would be to talk to them, sit in just a few hours of a live game as an observer and decide. I actually knew a GM in the 90's that DID have a high turnover rate in my local shop due to many people having 'opinions' about him. I was in one night and decided to see what it was about. Best GM I had up to that point in my gaming. His playstyle is what made me decide "Yes, this is what tools I want to borrow from him when I run mine.." I would have never know it if I didn't actually talk to him and sit in on a game vs taking the 'crowd' at their word that his games are too damn tedious, ridged, and he was too 'power hungry' (He was a stickler sure, not power hungry). That no amount of points/upvotes/player counters will let you know if you will enjoy a GM. Just if others, you never met and might be totally different playstyle..didn't like him. Like back in the days where you went to game shops and saw postings on the board for looking for players. You show up during gametime, listen and watch and go "These guys seem ok". It's like asking 4000 strangers you know nothing about, if they like a particular flavor of icecream. It might be the best you ever had, and will never know because others said it was nasty to them. Essentially, its hard to quantify personal taste, to a universally applicable stat. Without alienating some portion of the people. 500 join/leaves that was for "Hes a round peg, that doesn't fit my square hole" in no way helps a player that is a round peg. They would end up trying the places the 500 went to, to realize "Wow, umm I dont fit in this square hole everyone seems to recommend".

I totally agree with what DXWarlock so descriptively described. I had similar experience back in the 80's at my first game store "Black Forest" but it was from being a GM's perspective. I was told by many people not to let player X into the game because he would ruin it. People talked about how he did this or that (details don't matter) in various games and if I accepted what various people said without actually taking the time to talk to him and do basically a session 0, I would not have learned that he had a disorder. Over the years of gaming with him, we became friends and had lots of good games. As everyone is pointing out, numbers without context is not always a good thing. With my opinion said here and there, I thank you for bringing up this aspect but I'm just going to stick with my old school method of meeting players & GMs before gaming with them to see if we are compatible.

@DXWarlock While I understand where you're coming from, but your own story is representative of why letting players see turnover rates wouldn't be bad at all. You said yourself you knew the GM had a high turnover rate, and joined anyways. Why not give players on Roll20 access to the same information? Give them the ability to judge the situation for themselves. The system doesn't have to be designed in a negative light. We already let players see things like GM play time, forum post, plus or pro status, achievements, etc. Should we not allow players to see any of those things in fear that it would lead to some players not joining those GMs' games? Again if things were implemented as @Spren suggested it would just be a simple list. Just another tool to allow players to make an informed decision. Also to touch on your example a bit more if a GM makes a great game for 25% of the players who join then the other 75% have to suffer. Is that fair to them? Especially considering many of these players are new players who may end up leaving the hobby as a result. I've seen GMs on Roll20 who murder players for fun, but I've known plenty of people who enjoy that style of game. However I've also seen a far larger number of people leave the hobby after having that sort of experience. I don't think someone who engages in that play style should be banned or anything, but I do think players, especially new players joining the hobby for the first time should be able to make a more informed decision.

I've added my vote to this idea, not because I necessarily want ratings for GMs, but because I (a) appreciate the thought put into this that does make it different from most rating system ideas suggested and (b) I would love for Roll20 to tackle this issue, even if the resulting answer is a final "no" to ratings. Best case scenario, they find a system that will truly work well for ratings and won't be abused, and other best case is they truly come to a conclusion that ratings just won't work.

In addition to what DXWarlock and others said before: What happens with visitors, spectators, audience, helpers, testers? They change every session in a long ongoing campaign. I would have a turnover rate of approx. 500 in the last 2 years, but only 5 of them were actual players that left for reasons outside the game (we all have real lifes) and just 1 player leaving cause we didn't get along (round and square problem). This statistic would say nothing about my toxicity, because toxicity was not the cause for the leaves. The system you propose would not work, because it doesn't measure what you think it measures. Edit: What is toxic gm behaviour, that is not worthy of a word with the devs? Or - as you mentioned law enforcement - the police? Having a different opinion or playstyle or experience-level should not be labeled as toxic.

Danii said: Edit: What is toxic gm behaviour, that is not worthy of a word with the devs? Or - as you mentioned law enforcement - the police? Having a different opinion or playstyle or experience-level should not be labeled as toxic. This is a key issue. What is toxic to one person might not be toxic to another.

A number cannot measure opinion or playstyle. What this would really measure would be conformity to a norm. I wouldn't want to go back to burning gm-witches just cause they do things different.

Hello all, Please be sure to keep conversation on this thread inline with the Posting to Suggestions &amp; Ideas section of the Code of Conduct.&nbsp; As a reminder, relevant information regarding this suggestion states:&nbsp; Don't debate the suggestion's merit, and don't discuss why it will or will not happen. That stifles conversation in the Suggestions Forum. ... All Suggestions, Posts, and Comments must adhere to the Roll20&nbsp; Code of Conduct &nbsp;and the&nbsp; Terms of Service . In addition, below are some additions to the Code of Conduct specifically for the Suggestions Forum. DO: Expand upon the original suggestion. Describe what you would do with the suggestion in your game and with your group. DON'T: Post a comment about why you don't like a suggestion. Post about why you think a suggestion is unnecessary, unworthy, or not important. Predict the response of the Dev Team or the likelihood that a suggestion will be implemented. As such, any post that does not follow these guidelines are subject to moderation action.&nbsp; If you have any question feel free to email the devs at <a href="mailto:Team@Roll20.net" rel="nofollow">Team@Roll20.net</a>. Thanks!

Uhm, I don't mean to point out the obvious, but there is a system for spotting people you want to avoid. I have been here over two years, and without any rating system, I have noticed a few GM's who seem to 1 always be looking for players, (and these are not one shots or living world games,) or are trying to run 20 different games at once. It becomes obvious just by watching for a few weeks who to avoid, and anyone who wants to avoid the worst of them should just pay attention. Now of course this doesn't stop people from signing up with the wrong group on occasion, and sometimes players just don't mesh. Not anyone's fault they just have different styles and won't be able to have fun together. The best solution I believe is to maybe have a place where people can go to meet potential GM's they are interested in gaming with... Wait, there is this thing I've heard about called the internet, and a service called discord... Could that work? :-) (Yes I'm being a bit snarky, but I'm trying to be funny as well)

I must admit, that I haven't had time to read all the suggestions put forward here. Elee M.'s first post just piqued my interest and I had a complementary idea. I was thinking, maybe the Turnover Score (or basically whatever algorithmic-score you come up to) could possibly framed not as a bad thing per-se but to highlight positive aspects.Think of it like badges or 'achivements': - This GM has shown a very loyal playerbase in the last three months. - This GMs games are filling up fast. - Slots in this GMs game are heavily sought after for Games of PF2E

I like the idea of a player turnover score. I would like this idea better if Roll20 facilitated a system for players to observe games while they are in play, that way it could distinguish "players" from "guests". I'd also like this, because I would love to observe games people are playing, to help discover more about what Roll20 can really do in the hands of experienced GMs and players.

It seems like there's a fundamental issue that people use roll20 in different ways. Whether for different games, recruitment methods, etc, players will join or leave games for many varied reasons. To attempt to consolidate them in one score, or to choose one score to represent them, would misrepresent some &nbsp;GMs. Also, having a single score might lead to GMs trying to game the system. I would suggest that instead of having a single score, GMs have several, using some of the alternative measures people in here have proposed.

i dont like this idea because as a gm ive had really unpredicatable players that dont put in the commitment for a game to continue. i dont think the fault should lay with the gm. i think gms should have value over what players they pick. as that is how it is in real life. the gm shouldnt be penalised. it should be the other way around. finding the right players for the right game, dictated to by the gm. the players should have reliability. now i understand that you want to police and refine the process of purchased pro games. that is totally reasonable to know what to expect. but there is an easier solution to this and that is to do it how like fiverr.com does it and have a tier of people that are certified by roll 20 to be good GMs. that way you know you are getting quality and the GMs can charge more. and when they are not certified then you can expect lower quality. back to the idea of players being flimsy and unreliable. of course they have a right to leave any game they join but there should be a feedback system. like you would when you report players in matchmaking games like dota. and you give a reason as to why you left unless you have in the game its a one shot. these reasons can be displayed publically at the choice of the GM if they are not being paid for the game. and if they are it has to be public. this tells others what to expect and its more honest. no rating system. direct quotes.

Nick said: i dont like this idea because as a gm ive had really unpredicatable players that dont put in the commitment for a game to continue. i dont think the fault should lay with the gm. i think gms should have value over what players they pick. as that is how it is in real life. the gm shouldnt be penalised. it should be the other way around. finding the right players for the right game, dictated to by the gm. the players should have reliability. now i understand that you want to police and refine the process of purchased pro games. that is totally reasonable to know what to expect. but there is an easier solution to this and that is to do it how like fiverr.com does it and have a tier of people that are certified by roll 20 to be good GMs. that way you know you are getting quality and the GMs can charge more. and when they are not certified then you can expect lower quality. back to the idea of players being flimsy and unreliable. of course they have a right to leave any game they join but there should be a feedback system. like you would when you report players in matchmaking games like dota. and you give a reason as to why you left unless you have in the game its a one shot. these reasons can be displayed publically at the choice of the GM if they are not being paid for the game. and if they are it has to be public. this tells others what to expect and its more honest. no rating system. direct quotes. Yeah I've thought about things allot after posting this thread. To be honest my main concern with this problem was the new player experience. I don't think veterans are going to quit playing TTRPGs after one bad game, but many new players will be turned off of the hobby for good. I have seen this happen personally, or met others who would have quit playing if I didn't reach out to them after a first bad experience. I definitely like the idea of some sort of approved GM list for new players. Perhaps some sort of mentor system could exist to have some GMs vetted by the Roll20 staff in some way? At least initially. Perhaps after that GMs in the mentor program could be put in charge of finding other GMs to add to the program. To be clear if someone was a mentor you would need to make sure the only games listed with the mentor tag were those they made specifically to teach new players. Note that this would be different than the current 'welcome to new players' tag as only people approved would be allowed to list the game as such. New players are the lifeblood of this hobby so I think it's important to add extra emphasis on making sure their first experience doesn't end up being a nightmare GM story on Reddit.

I think Roll20 endorsing GMs would be a pretty easy way to create hate and discontent.&nbsp; All it would take is one off day by an endorsed GM, or incompatible play styles between a player and GM.&nbsp; If I was Roll20, I wouldn't touch that sort of thing at all, ever.

I wish Roll20 would continue down a path they started a while ago and continue the super group support. Right now there is only the Adventure league listed in the search engine. I personally believe specific style communities might help people out better than a rating system. My community would such an example. It is a Roll20-centric community that helps people with physical, mental, social issues, along with lack of computer hardware that prevents or makes games in voice difficult or impossible to participate in. There are communities that are focused on specific systems also. Promoting and supporting these communities would, in my opinion, do more in helping people find GMs or games along with answering questions that do arise when people start playing the hobby than a rating system. Now this is not living worlds or such but actual social communities. Back in the 80's and 90's, I got to embrace that social aspect at my local game store. Roll20 would benefit from that.&nbsp;

Could one version of this be the in the form of the achievements showing in your profile? Like : Campaign Master 1 &nbsp; "Has played with the same person in 3 sessions" Campaign Master 2 "Has played with the same 3 persons in 5 sessions " Campaign Master 3 "Has played with the same 5 persons in 10 sessions " A more positive focus on how many players that keep returning to your game, rather than counting how many that dropped out.

I agree, achievements are the way to go.&nbsp; In fact, achievements already help indicate whether or not a DM or Player might be problematic or excellent.

There is a way to do a review system without the possibility of review bombing. Require a reviewer to have logged 16 hours of gaming with the GM. Most sessions are approximately 4 hours and weekly. This would require a player to play 4 weeks worth of games with a GM prior to being able to review them.&nbsp; The review process could also be designed to focus on specific metrics rather than a simple thumbs up or down and star review. Ask players to rate the GM on various metrics like System Knowledge, Communication, Fairness, and Creativity. This would provide more valuable information to the community and the GM . It could also be designed to allow players to leave short, 240 character reviews and all reviews could be reportable to Roll20 staff for verification, consideration and removal. p.s. I like this thread’s idea also and would combine them.

Darius S. said: There is a way to do a review system without the possibility of review bombing. Require a reviewer to have logged 16 hours of gaming with the GM. Most sessions are approximately 4 hours and weekly. This would require a player to play 4 weeks worth of games with a GM prior to being able to review them.&nbsp; Sounds like a good Idea :) Though I think the number should be lower. Many sessions are much shorter than 4h and then there are one-shots. It is perfectly reasonable to post a review after 2 hours of game-time, perhaps with an option to edit it later if the first impression didn't last.&nbsp;

Rating systems are a tricky business. The very first thing you need to establish is are the people doing the ratings actually people. Do they play in games with other people? Do those people post in the forums? Generally speaking, you can trust people who associate with other people you trust. You can also look at how real people use roll20 and compare that behavior with normal behavior.&nbsp;&nbsp;

I think it is a bad idea personally, things like One-shots and Society play would cause issues, every table is new GM and players so it would mae the number practically useless. lol I GM a few convention games and suddenly I am "not a good" GM. Plus there are lots of reason people come a go, maybe the table is not to there liking, either to much RP or to much hack and slash. Plus real "life happen" people have to leave games penalizing the GM for that seems wrong.

After having looked through this conversation, would it not work better as a hybrid system?&nbsp; Ranking by player vote different aspects of the campaign/session such as the GMs skill at storytelling, rule set expertise, player management, etc), an algorithm that presents information on player rotation (like player played x sessions with this DM), campaign count (both number of overall campaigns and number of campaigns with ruleset) for DMs and average length, Campaign qualifiers (denoting a campaign as a one shot or multi session when creating the campaign), etc. Using multiple ratings will not stop rating abuse, but it will make it harder for both players from rating bombing and GMs from account scumming.