What I've Learned As a GM mk II

[Brian]

What I've Learned As a GM

   A stream-of-thought essay on Game-Mastering by Brian Randall

   We, as gamers, put a lot of stock in 'good' GMs and 'good' players, as components for assembling a 'good' game.

   But, realistically, what makes a 'good' game?  Different types of gamers will want different things.  The easiest way to get on the road to a good game, as I've found, is to participate in a bad one.  That is to say, a game which gives you exactly what you don't want.

   I ended up going through a horrible game quite by accident, and came to some conclusions that most of you will probably already have known.

   Now, I'll spare you most of the specifics of the bad game I went through, as the details aren't really relevant.  This is meant to be more of a pedantic dissertation on the philosophy of gaming (and GMing, specifically) than the details.

   And realistically, that's an important factor in your games.  What it all comes down to is this:

   You, as a GM, probably have an array of sourcebooks at your disposal, if you're using a system that's been around and your players already know.  You've got rules galore for managing pretty much everything you could want to manage.  There are other tools you can apply, too.  Dice, of course, are the most obvious ones, as almost any game I've ever been in relied on them for their mechanic.  Figurines, for those of you who want to take detail to the next level.

   But, as I realized through the aforementioned horrible game, for me, 'role playing' wasn't about the dice, or the stats, due to the fact that the GM pretty much ignored the dice and had exactly what he wanted to happen take place.  This was done badly, in this instance, but showed me that it could be done better, too.  The truth of the matter, I realized then, was that gaming is about playing your role, and the dice (or any rules at all) are all secondary to mission #1 of gaming: having fun.

   We take gaming seriously, and on some forums, we may take it too seriously.  Rules Lawyers are a well known stereotype, but let's look at them after we apply mission #1 to them.  For the Rules Lawyer, very likely the game (the RPing, specifically) is secondary to the system it's run in, and the rules that make the world you're in.  For the RL, the game is ultimately less about RP, and more about doing what you want within the system.  This is not exactly getting to the point where you 'win the game', but it's getting you to a point where you're playing, and ostensibly making progress.

   Now, before anyone gets the idea that I'm saying RLs can't RP, or have no interest, that's not what I'm saying.  I'm just pointing out what is their primary drive in the game.  RLs are gamers, too, and they're in the game to have fun.

   Looking at a few other stereotypes, we get the Combat Monkey and the Drama Queen.  Both of these players have clearly definable goals -- the Combat Monkey wants to fight, get better at fighting, and fight some more.  And maybe he'll RP along the way, and maybe all his fighting is pure RP because he's on a quest for vengeance.  Most likely, though, the Combat Monkey archetype is there to fight, because for him (or her), that's what the game is 'about'.  That's the fun part.

   The Drama Queen, of course, wants to RP, talk their way around most confrontations, and see about doing things that work (most likely within the system), to accomplish their goals without fighting as much.  Or maybe just as much as the CM, only it's, you know, dramatic.  This is also valid, but most DQs are really all about the character interaction, the thrill of BEING someone else.  That's the sea route to comedy India in terms of fun for them.

   Taking what we've learned here, your ideal 'good' game is going to cater to what your players want.  As a GM, it's your job to make sure that their goals and yours are close enough for you and your players to have fun.  Because, let's be honest.  If you're not having fun, it's not much of a game, is it?

   Any time your game becomes so serious that you have to kick someone out of it, and no longer speak to that person as a friend, or every time you end a friendship over something your GM did to you ... you're taking something that's a game way too seriously.  Because you've just taken the entire thing into the realm of no longer having fun, in which case, why are you bothering?  The only reason you're ever going to get a 'bad' game is, in short, by having a GM that fails to meet the player's expectations.

   Of course, your players may demand things you don't want to give them, in which case, take a step back and ask yourself if it's going to be fun gaming in the first place.  Communication is the key to any good game, I believe.  Some players will go for the cruel, sadistic, unfriendly, and monster/trap/evil NPC/natural accident route to the extreme, and make you suffer every inch of your journey until it's complete.  And if that's what you're looking for in a game, to make that final reward that much sweeter, then it's perfect for you.  But it might not work so well for someone else.

   This isn't to say you can't surprise your players once in a while.  There's no reason everything should be sunshine and roses the entire trip.  If it's too easy, it may lack desired dramatic tension.  But communicating with your players is the key here.  Communication is always the key.  Check with your players and see what they want.  As a GM, be flexible enough to change things to suit your players.

   The worst thing you can do as a GM is to make an immense, structured, static world, and expect your players to go through it a specific way.  Because if your players make a move that throws you, they're suddenly running into things and NPCs that you've statically assigned to screw them over or not care, or just wonder why the heck they're around.  And now you're not having fun because the path you wanted them to go down isn't being trodden, and they're unhappy because they're running into things that aren't helping them reach their goal.

   This may sound an awful lot like saying, "always let the player win; it's not about the player versus the GM".  And it may be.  Check with your players, and see what expectations they have for their characters.  Players can get attached to characters, and pretty upset if their character is killed ... then they have to create a new one.  Permanent character death is one of those things you have to seriously consider before bringing it into your game.  Will your players enjoy gaming knowing that at any moment a bad die roll means they're either out of the game, or their character is gone, and they need to start over?  For some people, the answer is going to be yes.  For others, it's going to be no.

   But this brings us back to the instructions for how to play (and to GM) a 'good' game.  And that's to play together.  To work together with your players to what their goal is.  Give them the challenge they want -- don't be afraid to throw them a few surprises, because the game will get boring without it.  But always be sure that you know what they expect out of the game, and that they know what you're planning on giving them.

   Realistically, as some of you already know, you don't even need rules to run a 'good' game.  If you're all working together, you don't even need a GM, let alone the dice.  Use exactly what you're comfortable with, if it's every single core book and supplement ever created, or if it's just, "Let's all work together and tell a story."

   That's about it out of me.

[Anastasia]

I'm going to reply to this as I read it. Simpler that way for all concerned, since I suspect I'd take forever to reply if I read it then made one huge ass commentary back.

Anyhow, time to ramble on.

---

We, as gamers, put a lot of stock in 'good' GMs and 'good' players, as components for assembling a 'good' game.

But, realistically, what makes a 'good' game? Different types of gamers will want different things. The easiest way to get on the road to a good game, as I've found, is to participate in a bad one. That is to say, a game which gives you exactly what you don't want.

Yeah, pretty much.  You can objectively say what is a good game and a bad game until you're blue in the face, but until you've suffered through an abortion of an RP you're not working on a concrete backing.

For me? At first I wanted a 'good' game....but I found my way into a bad game or two, just as you did. I saw what was wrong and using that, I made sure I wouldn't make the same mistakes when I ran a game. It's simple experience; a needed lesson for many good GMs.

You, as a GM, probably have an array of sourcebooks at your disposal, if you're using a system that's been around and your players already know. You've got rules galore for managing pretty much everything you could want to manage. There are other tools you can apply, too. Dice, of course, are the most obvious ones, as almost any game I've ever been in relied on them for their mechanic. Figurines, for those of you who want to take detail to the next level.

But, as I realized through the aforementioned horrible game, for me, 'role playing' wasn't about the dice, or the stats, due to the fact that the GM pretty much ignored the dice and had exactly what he wanted to happen take place. This was done badly, in this instance, but showed me that it could be done better, too. The truth of the matter, I realized then, was that gaming is about playing your role, and the dice (or any rules at all) are all secondary to mission #1 of gaming: having fun.

Winner. That last line underscores what I feel is the fundament of Role Playing for me, or GMing - having fun. You're absolutely right. You can have a flotillia of source books, a bevy of optional rules from everything to encumberance to sexual encounters, and enough dice and pewter to drown a D and D freak, yet those are just the window dressing and setup for the main goal of fun.

Which is why that at the core of it, that I think many good sourcebooks tell you to fiddle with the rules as you see fit. If the rules don't work or are getting in the way of your enjoyment of the game, kill'em dead. Fuck them and bury them in a rainy ditch and get back to having a blast if need be. I think most good GMs understand that on at least a subconcious level, and I've seen it in action myself and in the hands of others to support that idea.

If anything, a good GM should keep the rules used fairly streamlined and simplistic by and large so that they don't interfere too much with the RPing.

But, the bit you mentioned about the GM ignoring the dice and having thigns go his/her way is another valid point. If you ARE going to use a mechanic such as dice or whatnot, they have to be taken seriously, within reason. The GM should have some leeway with the dice lest they go crazy and utterly put the screws to a good game(Aside - Yes, a well planned game is resistant to bad dicing hurting it, but no dice based game is immune, really. Shit happens.)Anyway, the point I'm lumbering towards here is that making the dice moot is a mistake. It's turning a random factor that adds tension and a reasonable dose of unsurity into a meaningless act of flipping oddly sided bits of plastic about.

(Not going to get into the stereotypes of gaming.)

Taking what we've learned here, your ideal 'good' game is going to cater to what your players want. As a GM, it's your job to make sure that their goals and yours are close enough for you and your players to have fun. Because, let's be honest. If you're not having fun, it's not much of a game, is it?

Yep.

Any time your game becomes so serious that you have to kick someone out of it, and no longer speak to that person as a friend, or every time you end a friendship over something your GM did to you ... you're taking something that's a game way too seriously. Because you've just taken the entire thing into the realm of no longer having fun, in which case, why are you bothering? The only reason you're ever going to get a 'bad' game is, in short, by having a GM that fails to meet the player's expectations.

Heh. :)

To be fair, sometimes a player just isn't working and hurting the game, not to mention the other players enjoyment of said game. I don't view it as 'so serious' as much as a function of the GM - not a nice one, granted, but a responsibility of his to ensure a good game. If one player is souring the pot to the chargin of everyone else and remedies have failed, you either have to end the game or remove the problem. After all, if the actions of one shatter the fun for everyone else...

That is something of a double edged blade, though, as you got at. This can lead to some bad feelings if the bootee doesn't agree. A goodly dose of perspective does help, but even then? Who is happy about getting booted from a game?

I had an ugly incident in my SM game along these lines recently(Aside - I was wondering if this part came from it, as a matter of fact. Could be a coincidence, but I am curious. I recall some of this coming up in conversation with you.), so I can speak from experience.

Corwin and his PC, Minako, in short were spoiling the game for everyone else. All the PCs wanted her gone, and Corwin took it personally. I'm not happy about that fact in the least, but I'd be remiss as a GM if I took no action and let the other players hang in favor of one friend. And as much as it pains me to admit on a friendship level with him, it was the right thing to, and the results and feedback from the other players supported that.

Anyway, onward before I ramble any futher on that subject.

As far as the bad game bit at the end goes, it can also work the other way - PCs that just utterly fail to meet the GM's expectations. It is a two way street, even if the GM bears the bulk of the responsibility on the matter. You can have a wonderful GM, but if the PCs just aren't putting out for whatever reason...*shrug*

Of course, your players may demand things you don't want to give them, in which case, take a step back and ask yourself if it's going to be fun gaming in the first place. Communication is the key to any good game, I believe. Some players will go for the cruel, sadistic, unfriendly, and monster/trap/evil NPC/natural accident route to the extreme, and make you suffer every inch of your journey until it's complete. And if that's what you're looking for in a game, to make that final reward that much sweeter, then it's perfect for you. But it might not work so well for someone else.

Yeah. Good back and forth communication keeps PCs and the GM connected and in snych - a constant flow of feedback is useful for all parties. Otherwise, you're just shooting at the dark. Hell, I try to encourage my players to give me comments both good and bad, as I feel this is a vital part of good GMing.

This isn't to say you can't surprise your players once in a while. There's no reason everything should be sunshine and roses the entire trip. If it's too easy, it may lack desired dramatic tension. But communicating with your players is the key here. Communication is always the key. Check with your players and see what they want. As a GM, be flexible enough to change things to suit your players.

But of course. I'm sure all of us have a good memory or three of a twisty GM surprise that kept things fresh and interesting. ^_^

As for changing things, yes. A rigid plot tends to get wrecked by PCs...they have this amazing ability to manage things you'd never expect, eh? Unless you have a group of completely zombie like and listless PCs, some fluidity is a must as well as the ability to adapt storylines to unexpected changes. The GM isn't the only one writing the story - he's just the canvas for the PCs to paint on, largely.

The worst thing you can do as a GM is to make an immense, structured, static world, and expect your players to go through it a specific way. Because if your players make a move that throws you, they're suddenly running into things and NPCs that you've statically assigned to screw them over or not care, or just wonder why the heck they're around. And now you're not having fun because the path you wanted them to go down isn't being trodden, and they're unhappy because they're running into things that aren't helping them reach their goal.

Yes, yes, yes. I don't think I have to say anything more this after the above, but I just wanted to emphasize the point.

This may sound an awful lot like saying, "always let the player win; it's not about the player versus the GM". And it may be. Check with your players, and see what expectations they have for their characters. Players can get attached to characters, and pretty upset if their character is killed ... then they have to create a new one. Permanent character death is one of those things you have to seriously consider before bringing it into your game. Will your players enjoy gaming knowing that at any moment a bad die roll means they're either out of the game, or their character is gone, and they need to start over? For some people, the answer is going to be yes. For others, it's going to be no.

I may address some of these points in a later post, but this is getting way too lenghty without me adding a digression into PC deaths and such. I will say that the possibility of a PC death does add an element of both fear and tension, used correctly it adds to the game's atmosphere.

As for letting the 'PC's always win?' Eh. I think that entire attitude is in error. It's not a game where the PCs or the GM wins - I feel that either the PCs and GM both have fun and win together, or both lose and have a bad game together.

In conclusion? Yes to the last few paragraphs unquoted. Helluva ramble, Brian, you touched on several wonderful and thought provoking points.

[Brian]

A reply?  Woah!

But, the bit you mentioned about the GM ignoring the dice and having thigns go his/her way is another valid point. If you ARE going to use a mechanic such as dice or whatnot, they have to be taken seriously, within reason. The GM should have some leeway with the dice lest they go crazy and utterly put the screws to a good game(Aside - Yes, a well planned game is resistant to bad dicing hurting it, but no dice based game is immune, really. Shit happens.)Anyway, the point I'm lumbering towards here is that making the dice moot is a mistake. It's turning a random factor that adds tension and a reasonable dose of unsurity into a meaningless act of flipping oddly sided bits of plastic about.

Dice are used to provide something you can't really get otherwise -- a random result.  They basically intersperse your clear picture with static, and make it so that you don't always know what's going on, and how it'll end.  This is fine, and in fact, we use this mechanic in the game I'm running right now -- if you use a system, you'll probably want to use dice (unless it's Amber's Diceless RPG).

Obviously, we like dice, too, so I'm hardly saying you're wrong. ;)

But at the same time, there are groups and players who might prefer to go without dice (I think we've got an active game or three here that runs entirely by the GM's fiat).  Dice are a tool like any other, it's a question of if you want to use them.  Usually, I'll side on the favor of keeping dice in the game, and it's not JUST to make sure wer're using the sourcebooks we shelled out all those dollars for.  It's because instead of diving into the system of the book, we're dipping our toes in the water, and making a course further up the beach to our own vacation spot.

Maybe we just want a bit more shade. ;)

To be fair, sometimes a player just isn't working and hurting the game, not to mention the other players enjoyment of said game. I don't view it as 'so serious' as much as a function of the GM - not a nice one, granted, but a responsibility of his to ensure a good game. If one player is souring the pot to the chargin of everyone else and remedies have failed, you either have to end the game or remove the problem. After all, if the actions of one shatter the fun for everyone else...

That is something of a double edged blade, though, as you got at. This can lead to some bad feelings if the bootee doesn't agree. A goodly dose of perspective does help, but even then? Who is happy about getting booted from a game?

I had an ugly incident in my SM game along these lines recently(Aside - I was wondering if this part came from it, as a matter of fact. Could be a coincidence, but I am curious. I recall some of this coming up in conversation with you.), so I can speak from experience.

It may apply, actually, but this was also about me beating myself up for bringing Shade into a game where I didn't meet his expectations.

And, yes, the fault is two-fold.  The GM alone is not responsible for everything that does or does not work.  It's a system that takes both the players and the GM working together to work, and any time someone works against the system, it's time to re-evaluate.

Which is what you (and I) did.  And we came to the conclusion that the easiest result was to remove the players in question.  Of course, if I had communicated with Shade beforehand and realized that my campaign didn't come close to meeting his expectations, I wouldn't have invited him.  I think I probably really annoyed him by making him go as far as he did in that game, really.

I don't know if this holds true for your situation, but it may.  Either way, communication is the key to finding out what went wrong and avoiding it again.  We learn from our mistakes, but boy howdy, I should be a lot more learned than I feel. ;)

As far as the bad game bit at the end goes, it can also work the other way - PCs that just utterly fail to meet the GM's expectations. It is a two way street, even if the GM bears the bulk of the responsibility on the matter. You can have a wonderful GM, but if the PCs just aren't putting out for whatever reason...*shrug*

This is absolutely true.  Of course, as a GM, it's your (our) goal to try and see these things coming in advance.  Obviously, I blew it.  The other factor, though, is that people can change in their desires.

Someone may want something else.

This ties in with the GM being flexible.  Neither you or I were, in this instance, because being that flexible would get in front of the other players (if I understand your situation correctly).  This is probably the best choice of a bad situation.

Hell, I try to encourage my players to give me comments both good and bad, as I feel this is a vital part of good GMing.

Any GM that doesn't ask for feedback at the end of his campaign will probably end up not seeing the end of his campaign coming. ;)

At any rate, Dunefar also asked for some specifics of the 'bad' game I was in, so I'll post those later (not in this thread, for risk of hijacking) as an example of things that many players will probably not appreciate.

[Anastasia]

But at the same time, there are groups and players who might prefer to go without dice (I think we've got an active game or three here that runs entirely by the GM's fiat). Dice are a tool like any other, it's a question of if you want to use them. Usually, I'll side on the favor of keeping dice in the game, and it's not JUST to make sure wer're using the sourcebooks we shelled out all those dollars for. It's because instead of diving into the system of the book, we're dipping our toes in the water, and making a course further up the beach to our own vacation spot.

Maybe we just want a bit more shade. ;)

*Nods*

Heck, one of the games here in question is under my care(Carth and Cy's Adventure. To be fair, it's only NEARLY diceless, but what little dicing there is is purely GM stuff when I need a result.) I prefer to mainly use dice myself, as they do add another factor in, one that I like - uncertainty. Sure, a PC can have a Sword of Dragon Slaying+12, but the vagaries of the dice still allow for failure and risk.

I'm attached to the little buggers. >_>

It may apply, actually, but this was also about me beating myself up for bringing Shade into a game where I didn't meet his expectations.

Aaaaaaah. I know you'd heard a bit about it from myself, and perhaps from Corwin or another of the players. I was wondering if you were using it to make a point, or were drawing on personal experience. Hit a bit too close to home there. Heh.

Corwin wasn't really a matter of expectations, I think, though.

And, yes, the fault is two-fold. The GM alone is not responsible for everything that does or does not work. It's a system that takes both the players and the GM working together to work, and any time someone works against the system, it's time to re-evaluate.

Which is what you (and I) did. And we came to the conclusion that the easiest result was to remove the players in question. Of course, if I had communicated with Shade beforehand and realized that my campaign didn't come close to meeting his expectations, I wouldn't have invited him. I think I probably really annoyed him by making him go as far as he did in that game, really.

I don't know if this holds true for your situation, but it may. Either way, communication is the key to finding out what went wrong and avoiding it again. We learn from our mistakes, but boy howdy, I should be a lot more learned than I feel. ;)

*Nods*

Corwin doesn't really quite fit into that mold...if anything, he worked very well at first. Things just broke down as the game went on and Minako ended up being a parody...but I won't go into that here, as I'd break the 20k post limit a few times before I was done.

Communication is a vital key, yes. Is it 'the' key? Not entirely, if what I learned from Corwin is true. Even with good communication(Which I feel I had with Corwin, even to the sour end), things can still break down on occasion. Perhaps a person hears only what they want to, or can't or won't accept some of the thing you're saying.

Call it the bashing into a brick wall clause, I suppose.

This is absolutely true. Of course, as a GM, it's your (our) goal to try and see these things coming in advance. Obviously, I blew it. The other factor, though, is that people can change in their desires.

Someone may want something else.

This ties in with the GM being flexible. Neither you or I were, in this instance, because being that flexible would get in front of the other players (if I understand your situation correctly). This is probably the best choice of a bad situation.

Yeah. To a degree, I think I did the same with Corwin - In retrospect, I would have at least nipped things in the bud far earlier than I did.

As for being flexible, I don't think that was the problem. If I really wanted to, I could have flexible-ed in what Corwin was trying to pull at points. 'cept it would have taken a bloody large wrecking ball fo the campaign, y'know. Again, though, I won't go into that deeply. It's a long ass story, and involved way too much shit to explain without derailing this.

Any GM that doesn't ask for feedback at the end of his campaign will probably end up not seeing the end of his campaign coming. ;)

At any rate, Anastasia asked for some specifics of the 'bad' game I was in, so I'll post those later (not in this thread, for risk of hijacking) as an example of things that many players will probably not appreciate.


Amen. Ooooh, new thread. *Goes to read*

[Dracos]

As a general point in my experience:

Shit does happen.  There's a lot of good tricks both of you listed to keep it to a minimum, but sometimes you just can't 'win'.  I'd give the message to remember to let things go.

Give it your best, do what you think is right and do right by others, but in the end, if it turns sour, just let it go.

Dracos

[Huitzil]

I learned that games in motion tend to stay in motion, and games at rest tend to stay at rest until they asphyxiate and die. Goddamnit.